yet and, therefore, more plant material might be added to the current dataset in the future. Plant remains were made according to morphological characteristics, surface manuals and archaeobotanical reports (e.g. Cappers et al. 2006; Cappers et al. 2009; Jacomet 2006; Willcox 2002; Nesbitt 2006; van Zeist et al. 1984; van Zeist & Bakker- Heeres 1982, 1984, 1985; Ghahreman et al. 1975–2007; modern seed reference collection at the Archaeobotanical Laboratory of the University of Nottingham, UK. All the plant remains were preserved by charring and the overall state of preservation was relatively good, although in some cases the condition of the items did not allow their iden- plant items per litres of soil processed. Archaeobotanical (Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic) and the results are presented accordingly.
Plant remains from the Late Neolithic deposits
In total nine samples containing charred plant remains were analysed from this phase including contexts 5093, 5095, 5105, 5107, 5121, 5126, 6014, 6015 and 6035. (5095 and 6014) the rest of the samples derived from ash/ midden deposits where high quantities of other archae- ological materials, such as animal bone remains, char- coal and pottery fragments were also present (Fazeli et al. 2009b). Therefore, the samples are more likely to represent domestic refuse accumulated over time. This phase produced the lowest density of plant remains with a maximum of 3.2 seeds per litre and a minimum of 0.12 seeds per litre across samples. Most of the samples the composition of these nine samples was relatively similar, containing rather low numbers of cereal grains, Hordeum vulgare) seemed to be the most common component in the cereal group. Few emmer grains (Triticum dicoccum) wheat grains were also present in most of the contexts that were impossible to identify to species level because of poor preservation. Emmer spikelet forks and glume bases were present in relatively large quantities in almost all samples. In addition, small numbers of spikelet forks and
of glume wheat (Fig. 9.1). Barley rachises were present in low quantities and most of them seemed to belong to the 6-row type. There were no free-threshing grains or rachis segments present and no cultivated pulses among the samples. In two samples some nutshell fragments were Prunus. The wild herbaceous taxa were composed of the following genera and fami- lies: Cruciferae, Galium sp., Aegilops sp., Eremopyrum, Astragalus type, Trigonella sp., cf. Medicago and Ajuga sp. Some medium-sized grass-type seeds were classi- further due to poor preservation.
Context 5107
One of the ash layer samples was of particular interest as it was found in the vicinity of three human burials in jars. These vessels were located in a domestic space, cremated and uncremated human bones. Evidence of the frequent use of red ochre with no recognisable pattern in 2010, 2016). The archaeobotanical samples of this context were recovered from ashy deposits in a small hole located near these human burials and contained a few emmer glume bases and spikelet forks and only a single uniden- the real absence of grains (rather than their invisibility to the possibility that some crop processing activities were taking place near these burials, although it is more likely that some mixing of the burial deposits with those from domestic areas may have taken place.
Plant remains from the Transitional Chalcolithic deposits
Twenty-four samples in total were analysed from this phase and were recovered from various contexts, such as - ison with the Late Neolithic assemblage, samples from this phase had relatively higher density of plant remains with a maximum of 9.9 items per litre and a minimum of 0.1. However, it must be noted that only one sample of samples had low quantities of plant material. The cereal component of these samples was a mixture of
41
glume wheat and barley both in the form of grain and all samples collected from the Transitional Chalcolithic phase. In addition to barley several emmer glume bases and spikelet forks as well as the ‘New Type’ occurred in most of the samples. As with the Late Neolithic assem- blage, free-threshing wheat and cultivated pulses were absent across the Transitional Chalcolithic samples. The from the Late Neolithic assemblage and overall, the samples presented a relatively similar picture of archae- obotanical data to the previous phase. It is important to mention that remains of charred sheep/goat dung pellets recovered from contexts 5020 and 5023, reported as room were also observed among the content of the dung pellets (Fig. 9.2). The frequent presence of domesticated sheep and goat was also attested in the faunal remains of this site (Mashkour 2004; Grezak 2018). Both these samples some wild species dominated by Leguminosae (small Aegilops (Goat-face grass) glume base and Aegilops seed were also recovered from these two contexts. Based on the presence of charred animal dung among the samples, it can be suggested that dung was used for fuel at the site during this phase. The micromorphological study of the Early Neolithic deposits of Sialk also points to lenses of trampled herbivore dung (stabling enclosures) and to fuel (Kourampas et al., 2013). Livestock dung burned as fuel has been considered as a major source of plant remains recovered from archaeological sites particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. Dung derived archaeobo- tanical material can provide important information in the investigation of animal dietary and prehistoric agro-pas- toral economies (Miller & Smart 1984; Charles 1998; Valamoti & Charles 2005; Miller 1996; Miller & Kimiaie 2006). The presence of dung-derived material in archae- obotanical assemblages has been reported from other prehistoric sites in Iran (Helbaek 1969; Miller & Smart 1984; Miller & Kimiaie 2006; Fazeli et al., 2009). In this integrated system of agriculture and animal farming. The anticipated to add more information on potential plant resources that may have been used as animal feed, and in extension provide information on land use and farming strategies.
Contexts 5073 and 5079
Most samples had a low quantity of charred plant mate- rial and no obvious relationship was observed between the archaeological contexts and the content of archae- obotanical samples in both chronological phases. For instance, comparison of plant material recovered from the in situ the Transitional Chalcolithic phase did not show a clear patterning. Samples from both contexts yielded cereal numbers of wild taxa from grasses, legumes and sedges. The content of the in situ domestic hearth (5079) seemed
The Sialk assemblage analysed to date comprises a total most abundant taxon among the cereals in the assemblage, the Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic samples (Table 9.1). Low numbers of nutshell remains (tentatively Prunus sp.) occurred among two samples in the Late Neolithic phase. In the wild species group, both small legumes and grasses were the most ubiquitous taxa throughout time. Other wild taxa such as Cruciferae, Polygnum sp., A triplex sp., A juga sp. and Galium were also attested among the samples in lower frequency (Table 9.1). In terms of species composition and quantity, no signif- and the Transitional Chalcolithic assemblages. The state of preservation was relatively uniform in samples from conditions and taphonomic processes. Archaeobotanical samples from both periods had a relatively low density of material and are more likely to represent the waste from multiple activities/sources (crop processing, food prepara- tion/consumption and fuel) that might have been dispersed across the domestic area.
Discussion
This study was based on the assessment of 33 archaeobo- - logical sequences of the Sialk North Mound. The results should be treated with caution at this stage as they may be subject to change after the completion of the study of the
42
the botanical remains from Sialk indicate the exploitation glume wheats, possibly some nuts and other wild taxa during the Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic periods. The previous study of limited number of samples from upper layers of the Sialk North Mound demonstrated the presence of relatively similar cultigens including barley (six-row) and glume wheat (emmer, possibly einkorn) grass species. No evidence of cultivated pulses or free- threshing wheats was reported from the Neolithic botan- ical remains from the site (see also Tengberg 2003, 2004). Based on the consistent presence of glume wheats in the - tial areas of both periods, it can be suggested that some food preparation activities would have taken place inside the buildings. Glume wheats are usually stored in their spikelets and require rigorous de-husking, which would normally take place piecemeal based on the individual needs (Jones et al., 1986). The discovery of grinding stones and sickle blades at Sialk North Mound also indi- cates that harvesting and processing activities were being may have also been used as fodder, as in two samples dung pellets were found in association with emmer grains and and the absence of bread wheat in the Sialk Neolithic assemblage can be an indicator of cultural choices. If we assume that the remains of cereal grains (barley, glume wheat grains) and other edible plants were used also for human consumption, in terms of human subsistence and time. According to the available archaeobotanical studies of this region it appears that glume wheat grains (emmer, new type, einkorn) were the main wheat crop during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods while the exploitation of free-threshing wheat was attested among the archaeo- botanical samples of later periods (Tengberg 2003, 2004; Ilkhani in press; Fazeli et al. 2009). The presence of free- arid environments, was attributed to the practice of irri- gation (Helbaek 1969; Miller 1999, 2003). In general, glume wheats are more resistant to drought and poor soils
threshing wheat grows better on irrigated and more fertile soils. Overall several environmental and social factors could have contributed to the choice of glume wheat over free-threshing wheat during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic - vated pulses frequently occurred at the Neolithic sites in the south and south-west of Iran, they were not found in this study. The absence of cultivated pulses in the Sialk archaeobotanical assemblage might be the result of a number of factors, including taphonomic biases, and no study. For instance, due to processing requirements of and therefore they have lower preservation and archae- ological recovery potential than, for instance, glume wheats. Nevertheless, the absence of cultivated pulses has also been reported from the archaeobotanical assem- blage of Sang-e Chakhmaq, an early Neolithic site in north-east Iran (Roustaei et al. 2015). The dominant wild plant families in both plant assemblages were grasses, small seeded legumes and sedges. Usually, the presence of small legumes, such as Astragalus, Trigonella and Medicago are regarded as evidence of forage plants for grazing that arrived in prehistoric sites through animal dung burnt as fuel (Miller 1982, 1985, 2003; Miller & assemblages, such as Atriplex and Galium could represent arable or ruderal weeds. Eremopyrum is an arable weed that might have been harvested with cereals. Overall, the wild plants present seem to have derived from a variety of habitats, including arable land, roadsides, grasslands, wet environments and other places where ruderals are found. Some of these wild species might have been burnt as fuel or used as fodder and brought to the site through live- stock dung. For example, some small seeded legumes and grasses (Astragalus, Aegilops) that were found in associ- ation with sheep/goat dung pellets could represent fodder. However, further evidence is required to verify the use of wild species as food or fodder in the Sialk assemblage. Completing the study of the Sialk plant assemblage would allow more accurate interpretation of the past environmental and socioeconomic settings of the region.
43
Table 9.1. Ubiquity of each plant taxon and type within the Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic assemblage
Group
Cereals
Fruit/Nut
Total number of samples: 33 Taxon
Triticum dicoccum Triticum sp.
Triticum dicoccum Triticum dicoccum Triticum sp. ‘New Type’ Triticum sp. ‘New Type’ Hordeum vulgare Hordeum vulgare Cerealia
Cf. Prunus
Salsola sp.
Atriplex
Cruciferae Leguminosae Small Cf. Medicago Trigonella sp. Astragalus type Gramineae Aegilops sp. Aegilops sp. Bromus sp. Eremopyrum sp. Polygonum sp. Ajuga sp.
Galium sp.
Plant part
grain
grain spikelet fork glume base spikelet fork glume base grain
rachis
grain nutshell seed
seed
seed
seed
seed
seed
seed
seed
seed
glume base seed
seed
seed
seed
seed
Late Neolithic N=9
Ubiquity %
33
80
70
55
22
11
90
44
44
22
0
0
11
1
1
1
33
33
11
11
0
11
0
1
2
Transitional Chalcolithic N=24
Ubiquity %
12
41
75
58
58
20
91
66
58
0
4
29
4
25
8
20
12
33
4
0
4
17
17
0
33
44
10
Tappeh Sialk Human and Animal Osteological Collections at the National Museum of Natural History of Paris
MARJAN MASHKOUR, CÉLINE BON, FABRICE DEMETER, MARTIN FRIESS, SHIVA SHEIKHI, LILIANA HUET & ALINE THOMAS
Introduction
This paper presents the osteological material from Tappeh Sialk that was collected on site by Roman Ghirshman during three excavation campaigns in Iran before the Second World War. The treatment of this type of mate- rial, in particular the human remains, should be viewed within the general political, social and ideological context that prevailed between the two world wars (Quigley 2001). In fact, the Iranian collection from Sialk was one of a number of collections that were made by scholars in this period. Our aim in this paper is to review the present state of the collection of human remains in the Musée de l’Homme and the animal remains in the Institute of Human Palaeontology, both under the umbrella of the National Museum of Natural History of Paris. This is motivated by the fact that during the last two decades major advances in archaeological science and analytical techniques, including biochemistry and statistics, have underlined the importance of studying biological remains. It is thus vital to document properly museum collections that in any case need to be regularly curated and updated.
Roman Ghirshman excavations
In 1933 Roman Ghirshman’s attention was drawn to pottery sold on the Tehran market that came from unof- three seasons of excavation in 1933, 1934 and 1937 at Tappeh Sialk, 7 km south of Kashan (Isfahan district).
The archaeological site of Tappeh Sialk is divided between two mounds (Ghirshman 1935, 1938–9): a northern, smaller, mound, and a southern, higher, mound. The North Mound contained the most ancient occupation.
have been documented, all belonging to the same cultural complex that shows a gradual evolution in pottery deco- ration and an increase in the use of metal. Period II shows tools and alabaster items. Period III is mainly found on the South Mound. After what appeared to Ghirshman as a violent destruction of the settlement, evidenced by a thick Elam, thanks to 22 tablets written in Proto-Elamite script. - pation (Level V) was recorded and associated with a vast necropolis, to the south-east of the tepe, Necropolis A. The last occupation of Tappeh Sialk (VI) is mainly represented by a huge masonry construction that on the south of the mound was associated with a fortress wall. Ghirshman asso- ciated a second necropolis (Necropolis B) with this Level VI.
Human remains found during the Ghirshman excavations
of human remains (Fig. 10.1). Funerary practices and traditions evolved through time. During the most ancient periods (Periods I and II), tombs were situated in houses. ochre, while children have been found in urns. No arte-
In Necropolis A (contemporary with Level V), corpses (mainly pottery, bronze items and stone beads). The orien- tation of the corpses appears to have been random, as well as the side on which the body was laid down. Sometimes, tombs were rearranged to bury new corpses. In these cases, the other skeletons were piled up on one side.
45
In Necropolis B the graves were covered with six to eight slabs of stone or terracotta. No stone walls were built inside the graves. Terracotta was used only for the richest graves. Children’s tombs were also covered but, being the right or left side, in a north–south or east–west orien- tation. Rarely, two or three bodies were buried in the same tomb: remains of the oldest skeletons were moved to a corner of the tomb or placed in a bronze cauldron. Such graves were interpreted by Ghirshman as family vaults. excavations of Tappeh Sialk.
It appears that a number of human skeletons, of chil- dren and adults, were recovered by Ghirshman and his team. For example, in Necropolis B, 218 graves were excavated, of which 71 were intact; in Necropolis A, 15 graves were excavated. However, only 39 skulls and a few long bones from Tappeh Sialk are preserved in the anthro- pological collection in the Musée de l’Homme. Five skulls belong to juveniles (Table 10.1). During the excavation, Ghirshman deliberately chose to avoid sampling children. - yses were done on adult skulls. This is the reason why Ghirshman deliberately chose not to remove children’s skulls from the burials. The disappearance of the postcra- nial remains of other adult and child skeletons remains a mystery.
The Tappeh Sialk Collection in the Musée de l’Homme
There are 39 skulls in the Sialk Collection at the Musée de l’Homme (Figs 10.2a and 10.2b; Table 10.1). These skulls were excavated during the 3 excavation campaigns, but all represented but not with the same coverage (Fig. 10.3). Only two skulls belong to the Late Bronze Age whereas half of the collection is from the Iron Age Necropolis B. skulls for each. Most of the individuals were buried in separate graves, except two pairs. According to Vallois (1940), child #27277 was buried in the arms of an adult, #27276; two adults (#27283 and #27284) were buried together.
The state of preservation is very variable from one set of remains to another. Some skulls are complete and include the cranium and the mandible. Other skulls are fragmentary: sometimes the mandible is absent, some- times the cranium is only represented by the calva (Fig. 10.4). This discrepancy in the condition of the skulls was
already observed by Henri Victor Vallois in the early 1940s and is surely due to post-mortem taphonomic processes.
Analyses of Tappeh Sialk human remains by Henri Victor Vallois
In his craniometrical analyses of the reconstructed skulls, four groups, following the typological categorisation of his time: (1) an hyperdolichocephalic group (hyper long- headed), that he found only in the most ancient periods (I-III); (2) a dolichocephalic group (long-headed), found during all periods (except the fourth); (3) a brachycephalic (short-headed) ancient group, found in Periods II–IV; and (4) a modern brachycephalic group, found only during Period VI (Iron Age), that he linked to a potential Median migration.
Vallois also investigated state of health. He found a number of incidents of dental damage (caries) in the population, with the prevalence increasing through time from 3.5% for Period I to 9.5% for Periods V and VI. Of course, the limited number of individuals prevents us from drawing any conclusions. These lesions were mainly sample on display at the Musée de l’Homme (Fig. 10.5). He also observed that the teeth were worn out, mainly the the ancient periods and the Iron Age. Vallois suggests that teeth were used for gnawing leather during the Iron Age (Vallois 1940). For the Iron Age samples, the teeth colour was bluish, an observation he interpreted as the result of consuming tectorial substances.
Treatments of the Tappeh Sialk Collection in the anthropological collection of the Musée de l’Homme
Two skulls from the Tappeh Sialk Collection are now on display in the Musée de l’Homme (Fig. 10.5). Before the reopening of the Musée de l’Homme, these two skulls were carefully restored. This work revealed the various treatments that had been applied to the skulls from Tappeh Sialk. According to three restorers and one palaeontolo- gist, the skulls were fragmented when originally found and so were reconstructed. This reconstruction must have taken place shortly after the excavation, as they were already complete when Vallois studied the collection before 1940. A brown, waxy material was used to reas-
46
distortion to the skull. The skulls from the most ancient from this treatment than the skulls from Period VI.
The surface of the bones is dirty. Some reddish sedi- ment remains on the surface, stuck to the bone by animal glue. This glue may have been applied to consolidate the surface of the bone. After that, a varnish was deposited on the surface. Because this varnish is sticky, dirt and dust has been gathering for 80 years on the surface of the bones. Luckily, varnish and glue are easily dissolved in water, which allowed successful cleaning of the two exhibited skulls. The same treatment should be possible for the remaining 36.
Molecular preservation of the Tappeh Sialk Collection
Molecular analyses have been attempted on a number of samples from this collection. The collagen is usually well preserved, allowing for C14 dating and isotope analyses. On the other hand, human DNA was not preserved in most of the samples studied. Lack of preservation may be due to the warm temperature on the Iranian plateau, which is detrimental to DNA preservation, or the various treatments applied to the samples since they were exca- vated. Human contamination has been observed on these samples, because of the carefree manipulation of them by the excavators and several generations of anthropologists.
Animal remains
The animal osteological remains from Sialk are repre- sented by a handful of specimens kept at the Institut de Paléontologie Humaine (IPH). Initially studied by R. Vaufrey (1939: 195–7), a professor of Palaeontology at MNHN, these few specimens were selected from what was a much larger collection recovered during the excava- tions. The faunal remains are attributed to Levels I and II. It is stated by Vaufrey that Period I corresponds to the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Eneolithic (5th to beginning of 4th millennium ) and Level II corresponds to the Eneolithic (4th millennium ). These would then correspond to the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic as we would understand it now. His chapter then lists the iden- Equus caballus Pumpellii Duerst; dog, Canis familiaris; boar/pig Sus sp.; gazelle, Gazella sp.; wild goat, Capra aegagrus; wild sheep, Ovis vignei; domestic goat, logically Capra hircus (although in this
sheep, Ovis aries and cattle Bos taurus. This collection is summarised in a plate by Vaufrey and reproduced here (Fig. 10.6).
The specimens are all marked (annotated with Sialk and often the period and a serial number). We list in the white columns of Table 10.2 the bone specimens as they are recorded in the database of the IPH.
Review of the collection
years ago, it was necessary to go back to the material and check them. At the time when Vaufrey studied this mate- rial, faunal assemblages where not commonly studied and he refers to Anau in Turkmenistan, the one site that had been studied in the area by Johann Ulrich Duerst in 1908 (Duerst 1908).
10.7a and 10.7b), Vaufrey concluded with no hesitation that the equid teeth from Sialk belonged to a horse (Equus caballus Pumpellii Duerst) on the basis of comparisons with Anau.
Wild equid species present in south-west Asia during prehistory are hemiones (half-asses) and horses. The hemiones are represented by several subspecies, among which Persian onagers (Equus hemionus onager) are distributed on the Iranian plateau and kulan (Equus hemionus kulan) in nearby Turkmenistan. The situation for the horse is more complex because of the history of its domestication. In Iran, the presence has been recently recorded of a horse in the Zagros near Hamedan during the 6th millennium , but nothing can be said of its wild or domestic status (Amiri et al. 2019). Recent pale- ogenetic studies on horse remains point to the northern parts of Central Asia (Kazakhstan or even more north- erly regions) for a possible origin of the domestic horse (Fages et al. 2019).
A recent review by Ann Forsten of the fauna of Anau and in particular the equid remains (2000) demonstrates that those remains attributed to Equus pumpellii are not horse but kulan, one of the subspecies of hemione. Our review of the Sialk specimens shows characteristics of see better image in Fig. 10.7b). Specimen 22 is more prob- lematic because of the morphology of the double knot that is intermediary between hemione and horse (Fig. 10.7a). We have measured these two specimens for the record
47
(Table 10.3). It is important here to stress the fact that discriminating factors do not always work and errors of analysed genetically, although sampling is not always easy on museum collections and is often restricted. The other very successful method we recently tested on lower jaw teeth from modern comparative collections is geometric morphometric analysis that considers the overall shape. this case (Cucchi et al. 2017).
In conclusion, for the equids the presence of hemione is attested in the material while the presence of horse is not certain.
Caprini (sheep/goat)
For caprini only cranial samples were brought to France. They are mostly horncores, which are in fact among the most diagnostic elements of the skeleton. In the catalogue Ovibos or Ovis vignei.
- mens that are reported in the grey part of Table 10.2.
We think that Vaufrey used the term Ovibos to refer to domestic sheep. Ovis vignei was used to refer to the errors (see Ovis aries in Wilson & Reeders, online, third edition).
The horncores show the presence of wild goat (Capra aegagrus) (Figs 10.8a and 10.8b) and sheep (Ovis orien- talis) (Fig. 10.9) as well as domestic forms of both, Capra hircus and Ovis aries (Figs 10.8c and 10.8d). Some of these horncores could also be measured and we have included those measures in Table 10.3.
The cattle remains were represented by some dental remains (Figs 10.7c and 10.7d).
Finally, the remnant of a fragmented suid (swine) cranium does not allow for any decision on its wild or domestic status.
We can add here that the study of the Sialk faunal assemblages from recent excavations (Mashkour 2002, 2004a, 2004b, unpublished report), including several thousand animal bone remains, indicates the mass pres- ence of domestic sheep and goat, and very little domestic cattle (Fig. 10.10). In terms of wild herbivores, the pres- ence of wild sheep and goats is attested in very low numbers, as opposed to gazelle that seem to be the major hunted herbivore. Equids in general and suids contrib- uted very little to the diet. Some of the diagnostic equid earliest periods of occupation in Sialk. Other species also found in the excavations included dog, fox, hyena, leopard, birds and turtles.
Lastly, we can conclude that the collections of the Natural History Museum of Paris remain an important be undertaken including radiocarbon dating, geometric morphometrics, stable isotope analyses and paleogenetics. Some of these have been performed on the human remains and will be published in the near future.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the administration of the National Museum of Natural History of Paris for access to the human material and Professor Henri de Lumley and his collaborators at the Institut de Paléontologie Humaine for access to the animal remains.
48
Table 10.1 List of Human remains in the National Museum of Natural History of Paris housed at the Musée de l’Homme
27268
27269
27270
27271
27272 27273
27274 27275
27276
27277
27278
27279 27280
27281 27282
27283
27284
27285
27286 27287
107 fragmented cranium, mandible, 9 teeth and axis
vertebra
108 fragmented cranium and mandible
109 cranium and mandible
110 fragmented cranium, incomplete mandible and
two isolated teeth
111 fragmented cranium and fragmented mandible
1 cranium and fragmented mandible, bone fragments
2 calva, mandible, teeth and bone fragments
3 fragmented cranium, fragmented mandible and
bones
112 cranium and mandible, fragmented vertebra
113 cranium and mandible, bone fragments
114 fragmented cranium
115 fragmented cranium 116 cranium and mandible
101 fragmented cranium and fragmented mandible, three
phalanx
102 fragmented cranium and mandible; fragmented
mandible from a second individual
103 fragmented cranium and fragmented mandible, 16
teeth
104 fragmented cranium and mandible, three phalanx and
four teeth
105 cranium, mandible and one axis vertebra; fragmented
cranium from a second individual
106 fragmented cranium 6 fragmented cranium
IVth millennium
4th millennium 4th millennium 4th millennium
4th millennium 4th millennium
4th millennium 4th millennium
4th millennium
4th millennium
4th millennium
No information 4th millennium
5th millennium 5th millennium
5th millennium 5th millennium 5th millennium
5th millennium 10th–9th century
Occupation 2 Occupation 2 Occupation 2
Occupation 2 Occupation 3
Occupation 3 Occupation 3
Occupation 3
Occupation 3
Occupation 4
Occupation 4 Occupation 4
Occupation 1 Occupation 1
Occupation 1 Occupation 1 Occupation 1
Occupation 1 Occupation 6
1937 Adult years
1937 Adult years
1937 Adult years
1937 Adult years
1937 Adult years
IIIème ou IVème 1933– Child 1934 years
IIIème ou IVème 1933– Child millénaire Sialk Iran 1934 old
1933– Adult 1934 years
1937 Adult years
1937 Child years
1937 Child years
1937 Child
1937 Adult years
40–50 old
25–30 old
around 50 old
20–25 old
20–25 old
8–10 old
6–8 years
30–40 old
25–30 old
8–10 old
9–13 old
around 40 old
49
1937 Probably Adult 30–40 years old
1937 Probably Adult around 30 years
old
1937 Adult ? – fouilles Ghirshman, around 40 years 1937 old
1937 Adult 20–30 years old
38-6, Sialk, Kachan, 1937 Adult 30–40 years old période I
1937 old
38-6 Kachan, 1933– Adult 20–30 fouilles Ghirshman, 1934 years old
Number
Archaeological Number
Bones
Archaeological dating ()
Occupation
Inscription on the skull
Excavation year
Age (HV Vallois)
27288 7 27289 8
27290 9
27291 10
27292 11 27293 12
27294 117
27295 118
27296 119
27297 120 27298 121 27299 122 27300 123 27301 124 27302 125 27303 126
cranium, mandible and one tooth
cranium and mandible
cranium, mandible, atlas and axis vertebrae, one tooth and bone fragments
fragmented cranium
10th–9th century 10th–9th century
10th–9th century
10th–9th century
10th–9th century 10th–9th century
10th–9th century
10th–9th century
10th–9th century
10th–9th century 10th–9th century 10th–9th century 10th–9th century 10th–9th century 10th–9th century 10th–9th century
Occupation 6 Occupation 6
Occupation 6
Occupation 6
Occupation 6 Occupation 6
Occupation 6
Occupation 6
Occupation 6
Occupation 6 Occupation 6 Occupation 6 Occupation 6 Occupation 6 Occupation 6 Occupation 6
Xe-IXe avant notre 1933– 1934
Kachan 1933– 38-6, fouilles 1934 Ghirshman,crâne
Xe-IXe avant notre 1933– 1934 nécropole B, tombe
CXXV, fouille
Ghirshman
Xe-IXe avant 1933– notre ère., Sialk, 1934 nécropole B, tombe
CXXX, fouille Ghirshman
Xe-IXe avant notre 1933– ère, Sialk Iran 1934
1933– tombe C-XIII, 1934 fouille Ghirshman, nécropole B
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouille Ghirshman
1937, nécropole B
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouille Ghirshman
1937, nécropole B
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouille Ghirshman
1937, nécropole B
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouille Ghirshman,,
Kachan, fouilles 1937 Ghirshman,
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouille Ghirshman,
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouille Ghirshman,
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouilles Ghirshman,
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouilles Ghirshman,
38-6, Kachan, 1937 fouilles Ghirshman,
Adult 50–60 years old
Adult 30–40 years old
Adult 50–60 years old
Adult 60–70 years old
Adult 30–40 years old
Adult 30–40 years old
Adult 40–50 years old
Adult 15–18 years old
Adult 20–25 years old
Adult around 40 years old
Adult 50–60 years old
Adult 60–70 years old
Adult 20–25 years old
Adult 30–40 years old
Adult 20–30 years old
Adult around 50 years old
calva cranium
cranium
cranium vertebra
cranium
cranium
and mandible
and bone fragments
and mandible, axis and four teeth
and mandible
fragmented cranium, fragmented mandible and fragmented axis vertebra
cranium
fragmented cranium
cranium
fragmented cranium
fragmented cranium and fragmented mandible
50
Number
Archaeological Number
Bones
Archaeological dating ()
Occupation
Inscription on the skull
Excavation year
Age (HV Vallois)
27304 127
37305 4
37306 5
No number
No number
cranium and mandible
fragmented cranium, fragmented mandible and fragmented vertebra
cranium and mandible
cranium, 3 phalanx
One left tibia, two femurs (right and left), one left humerus
10th–9th century
12th–11th century
12th–11th century
Occupation 6 Occupation 5
Occupation 5
Occupation 5
38-6, Sialk, Iran, 1937 fouille Ghirshman,
site de Kachan, 1933– necropole A, tombe 1934 V, Xe-IXe avant
notre ère
38-6, Kachan, 1933– fouilles Ghirshman, 1934
tombe 6
Adult 30–40 years old
Adult 30–40 years old
Adult around 30 years old
51
Number
Archaeological Number
Bones
Archaeological dating ()
Occupation
Inscription on the skull
Excavation year
Age (HV Vallois)
IPH Code Drawer
Site
Exacation (Sector)
Excavation (Level)
Anatomic part
Laterality Family Species
Written on the bones
No. on the plate
Anatomic part
Side
Biometry
Observations
Chemical treatment
52
IPH Collection Information
Revision by M. Mashkour
1189 27T5
Sialk
I
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae
Ovis vignei
Sialq II F1189
Horncore
R Capra n/a hircus or
The bone is very thin
Polished for marking
1198 27T5
Sialk
I
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae
Ovis vignei
Horncore
R Capra Yes hircus or
The bone is very thin, single deep sinus
Polished for marking
4188 27T4
Sialk
I
Cheville osseuse
Gauche
Bovidae
Ovis sp. or Capra sp.
Sialq I F4188
6
Horncore
L Capra aegagrus
Cut marks around around the old fractured basal part, large specimen
4193 27T4
Sialk
I
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae
Capra aegagrus
Sialq I F4193
G Capra No aegagrus
Very large specimen. Old break on proximal part like in 4188, Fresh break on the basal part.
4190 27T4
Sialk
Cheville osseuse
Droite
Bovidae
Ovis sp. or Capra sp.
Sialq I F4190
Horncore
R? Ovis cf n/a orienalis
Very large specimen. Fresh and old break
4191 27T4
Sialk
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae
Ovis sp. or Capra sp.
Sialq I F4191
Ovis cf orienalis
Very large specimen. Fresh and old break, Matches 4192
Polished for marking
4192 27T4
Sialk
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae
Ovis sp. or Capra sp.
Sialq I F4192
Ovis cf orienalis
Very large specimen. Fresh and old break, Matches 4191
Polished for marking
1186 27T5 4128 27V 4141 27V 4130
Sialk Sialk Sialk
I
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae Bovidae Bovidae Bovidae
Ovis vignei
Horncore Horncore Maxilary
n/a n:a n/a
Not seen
I I I
Cheville osseuse
Gauche Gauche Gauche
Ovis vignei
Maxillaire
Ovis 10 aries
C. aegagrus female
C. aegagrus female
Capra hircus
Was not on the list
IPH Code Drawer
Site
Exacation (Sector)
Excavation (Level)
Anatomic part
Laterality Family Species
Written on the bones
No. on the plate
Anatomic part
Side
Biometry
Observations
Chemical treatment
53
Table 10.2 List in the animal remains of the National Museum of Natural History of Paris housed at the Institute of Palaeontology
IPH Collection Information
Revision by M. Mashkour
21 23T1
22 23T1
1183 27T5
Sialk III Sialk III Sialk I
Molaire supérieure 2
Droite Droite
Equidae Equus sp.
Sialq III, F21 M2 A, P.S. /2/3
12 11
Upper Molar 2
R Equus Done hemionus
Dental calculus, absence of pli caballin
1184 27T5
1185 27T5
Sialk I Sialk I
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae Ovibos
Sialq I F1184
Horncore Horncore
R Capra hircus Yes L Ovis sp
Higly Twisted
Polished for marking
1187 27T5
Sialk I
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae Ovis vignei
Sialq I F1187
Horncore
R Ovis aries Yes
Oval section, marked crest, presence of multiple deep sinuses, could match 4129 in showcase, possibly juvenile
Polished for marking
4129 27V 1188 27T5
Sialk I Sialk
Cheville osseuse
Gauche
Bovidae Ovis vignei
Horncore Horncore
Ovis aries
R Capra Yes
Matches 1187
Molaire inférieure 2
Equidae Equus sp.
Sialq III, F21 M2 A, P.S. /?/5
Lower Molar 2
R Equus sp. Done L Capra/Ovis n/a
Presence of pli caballinid
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae Ovibos
Horncore
Twisted
Polished for marking and some glue
Cheville osseuse
Bovidae Ovibos
Sialq I F1185
Large spec. Presence of multiple deep sinuses
Polished for marking
II Cheville osseuse
Bovidae Ovis vignei
Sialq II F1188
hircus or
C. aegagrus female
The bone is very thin, single short sinus
Polished for marking, with a treated spot for conservation
sp.
domestique, vers la partie terminale de la cheville, CF
sp.
sp.
IPH Code Drawer
Site
Exacation (Sector)
Excavation (Level)
Anatomic part
Laterality Family Species
Written on the bones
No. on the plate
Anatomic part
Side
Biometry
Observations
Chemical treatment
54
IPH Collection Information
Revision by M. Mashkour
6031 33T6
Sialk I
Prémolaire inférieure ou Molaire inférieure
Bovidae
Sialk I F6031 P.S. 7 1/2m
Upper D Molar
Bos
Yes
Juvenile
6039 33T6
Sialk I
Prémolaire inférieure ou Molaire inférieure
Bovidae
Sialk I illisible
Lower G Molar
Bos
Yes
Polished for marking
1239 30T6
Sialk
II
Boîte crânienne
Suidae
Sus scrofa ssp.
Sialq II F1239
3
Cranium, occipital and parietal bones
Sus scrofa
Presence of percussion impacts on the parietal bone
Polished for marking, also writen with a pencil: Sialq II
4291 28T2, C38T3 written
Sialk
II
Crâne
Canidae
Canis sp.
Sialq II F4291
1
Cranium, occipital and parietal bones
Yes
on the tag
Table 10.3 Measurements of animal remains in the IPH collection
Measurements after Ducos 1963
Code IPH
21 21
Species
Hemionus/Persian Onager
Intermediate Hemionus/ caballus
Tooth Lo lo
Upper Molar 1 or 2 23.6 24.5
Lower Premolar 3 25.64 14.66 or 4/Molar 1 or 2
LPt
12.8
LF
11.26
H LDK Cabalin fold
Measurements for Hemionus/Persian Onager after Eisenmann (1981)
86.8
N 15.17 N
Code IPH
6039 6031
IPH Number
4188
1188
1184
1198
1185
1187
4291
Species
Bos/Cattle Bos/Cattle
Bone
Horncore Horncore Horncore Horncore Horncore Horncore
Skull
Tooth
Molar Inf 1/2 Molare Sup 1/2
Age
Adulte Juvenile
H DT cervix
26.3 60.00 30.7
APD1 in bold
DT mes
27.5 32.0
DT occ
28.3 34.5
DAP cervix
15.9 23.8
DAP mes
16.0 20.9
DAP occ
13.4 19.1
Capra aegagrus
Capra hircus
Capra hircus 23.3
External Length2
Internal Length3
Capra hircus Ovis sp.
Ovis aries
28.4 16.88 42.8 31.3 37 23.8
57 41.036
26.8 16.45
164 165
134 134
Measurement codes in bold4
23 24 25 26 27
69.55 61.12 40.02 51.29 19.4
28 29 38 39 40
17.9 56.1 56.1 52.2 49.9
Notes
1. Antero-Posterior Diameter
2. Transverse Diameter
3. Measured with a thread
4. Von den Driesch 1976
55
11
Tappeh Sialk in the Louvre: Material and Archives from the Ghirshman Excavations
FRANÇOIS BRIDEY & JULIEN CUNY
Because of the Louvre’s involvement in the Sialk excava- tions led by Roman Ghirshman in 1933, 1934 and 1937, the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities of the musée du Louvre houses a representative collection of artefacts from the site and also an important archive of the exca- vations. The archive consists of about 400 photographs, including glass plate negatives (some of them were used - - sion of Ghirshman’s expedition and also deal with daily documents from the archive are gradually being invento- ried, digitised and currently studied in the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities.
From Tappeh Giyan to Tappeh Sialk: in search of a new project
It is interesting to clarify the context of Roman Ghirshman’s arrival in Sialk. France had played a key role in the development of archaeology in Iran from the end of the 19th century. In 1895, the convention signed by Naser ed-Din Shah Qajar granted France a monopoly on excava- tions across the entire territory of the Persian Empire. Such decades of the 20th century, French archaeologists focused almost exclusively on Susa, in Khuzestan, a site explored in 1884–6 by Marcel and Jane Dieulafoy then, from 1897, by Jacques de Morgan and his successor, Roland de Mecquenem. For this reason, this monopoly was ques- tioned by Iranians as well as by international scholars as early as the 1920s.
After the fall of the Qajar dynasty, in 1927 Reza Pahlavi Shah revoked the 1895 convention and decided
to create an Iranian Archaeological Service. The French and assumed this position from 1928 to 1953, and again from 1956 to 1960.
As part of his work at the head of the Iranian Archaeological Service, Godard drafted a new Antiquities Law, which was eventually passed in 1930. This cancelled France’s archaeological monopoly and provided a frame- work for authorising excavations. The policy of half sharing discoveries between Iran and foreign excavation was also introduced.
As soon as the 1930 law was promulgated, many foreign expeditions, mainly French and American, began Ernst Herzfeld, followed by Erich Schmidt, began his research in 1931 at Persepolis and Frederick Wulsin led excavations in Tureng Tappeh. In 1931 and 1932, Schmidt started working in 1932 at Tall-i Bakun. As Iranian archae- ology opened up, Georges Contenau, curator in charge of the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities at the musée du Louvre, decided in 1931 to support a new expedition to the site of Tappeh Giyan, near Nehavend. Two campaigns were organised and Roman Ghirshman oversaw the
The French Ministry of Public Education funded Contenau and Ghirshman’s expedition with the help of the French National Council of Museums, dedicating to the excavations part of its acquisitions budget. In 1932 the Ministry and the musée du Louvre renewed their funding for a third campaign in Tappeh Giyan, but this never took place because of the insecure situation in the area. The 1933 minutes of the Artistic Council of the National Museums show that Contenau and Ghirshman were then looking for a new site to explore. The Sasanian site of Holvan, near Sar-i Pol, was shortlisted for a time. In August 1933, the
56
Iranian government gave the musée du Louvre permission to explore the sites of Darab and Kulik Tappeh, but French archaeologists did not take advantage of these authorisa- tions. On the contrary, Ghirshman, who was then fully in charge of the expedition, became increasingly interested in the site of Bad Hora, located south of Asadabad, a few kilometres west of Hamadan; but the exploration of the site in September 1933 yielded only disappointing results. His intention was probably to work as close as possible origin of the bronzes the art market had been bringing to Europe for some time. In fact, after leaving Bad Hora, Ghirshman came back to the region of Giyan. Continuing further south, he made test trenches in Tappeh Jamshidi, east of the Nurabad plain, but he abandoned the site after three weeks of work due to the lack of ‘interesting’ (in Ghirshman’s view) material, but there were probably also suitable site for research was urgently sought.
From early 1933, several vases of a very particular shape, with long spouts and red-on-cream decoration, arrived on the art market in Tehran and in Europe. Some of which refused to acquire them. André Godard quickly established that this new material was coming from the region of Kashan and particularly from Sialk. He therefore asked the Louvre to express its interest in this site. Sialk other sites hitherto explored. The French National Council excavate the site; this was obtained from the Iranian author- ities in October 1933. Consequently, at the beginning of November, Ghirshman and his team moved from Luristan to Kashan, and began to work at Sialk in November 1933. There were two further campaigns in 1934 and 1937.
Ghirshman and his team in Sialk
Roman Ghirshman (1895–1979) was born in Kharkov in present-day Ukraine, at the time part of the Russian in Paris in 1923 and began to study archaeology at the Sorbonne, the École du Louvre and the École pratique des Hautes Études. Although he spoke and wrote French perfectly, Ghirshman retained throughout his life a profound attachment to Russian, his mother tongue. Some of his Sialk notebooks are written in Russian, perhaps because it was easier for him to write quick notes in the
Ghirshman’s wife, Tania (a nickname for Antoinette), née Levienne (1900–1984), accompanied him to Tappeh
Giyan and indeed was his closest assistant and support throughout his career. She was born in Constantinople to a French family, and she grew up in Baku in pres- ent-day Azerbaijan, where her father was a tradesman; as a consequence she learnt French as well as Russian. She came to Paris with her family when she was six years old. In her memoirs, Archéologue malgré moi (An archaeologist in spite of myself) published in 1979, she described her life with her husband at various archae- ological sites, giving a wealth of information on the participated in. On site, Tania was primarily in charge of logistics but she also helped with documentation, drawing the discoveries and in conservation of certain artefacts, as in the 1950s during the Susa and Tchoga Zanbil excavations led by her husband. A trained dental surgeon, Tania also served occasionally as a doctor for members and workers of the expeditions, as a document from the Sialk archive attests.
The other members of the expedition are known thanks to archival documents and photographs (Fig. 11.2). Georges Contenau may have visited Sialk during a study of the team. Gustave Tellier (1899–1974), also a member of the French archaeological expeditions led by André Parrot in Tello (Iraq) and Mari (Syria), took part in exca- vations at Sialk in 1933 and 1934. During these years, the architect was Maxime Siroux (1907–1975), but his work was cut short since in 1934 he accepted work with André Godard at Tehran, where he was to help with the construction of the Iran Bastan Museum and to work on the master plan for the University of Tehran, in collabo- ration both with Godard and the Iranian architect Mohsen Foroughi. During the last campaign (1937), André Hardy (1909–2005) took over from Maxime Siroux as the archi- tect of the excavations. He had previously collaborated with Ghirshman during the excavations at Bishapur, from 1935 to 1937. His archaeological career was short-lived, however: after the Second World War he devoted the rest of his career to architecture, participating in the rebuilding of Marseille in southern France. Two men who had been hired in Iran have still to be mentioned: Azad Gregorian was the expedition photographer and Souren Malhossian was the site foreman. Both played a key role. According to Tania’s testimony, a ‘repairer’ (conservator) was also hired in Tehran to restore objects on site (Ghirshman 1979: 47).
The publications
Syria, a peer-reviewed journal, after two seasons of excavation
57
(Ghirshman 1935). At that time Ghirshman only distin- guished three main periods of occupation, compared with to the fact that the North Mound, which contained the earliest levels, was explored only in 1937.
Age occupation and its two necropolises. Nevertheless, the latter volume was incomplete in the sense that it dealt only with a small number (18) of the excavated 218 tombs (Ghirshman 1938–9).
On site: three seasons of excavation
1933
As stated above, authorisation to excavate Sialk was campaign began on 19 November 1933 and lasted only until 30 December, as cold weather made it impossible to work after that date. In barely six weeks, the purpose was just to dig test trenches, looking for the origin of the ‘purple-red ceramic’ that had been previously proposed to the Louvre for acquisition.
Ghirshman decided to open three trenches in the South Mound (Sialk South) that he called ‘le Grand Sialk’ which quickly revealed remains of the Proto-Elamite period (Period IV) under much eroded Iron Age layers (Periods V and VI). The famous tablet (Fig. 11.4) was actually found on 25 November in Trench 1, 1 m beneath ground level. the mound allowed him to quickly dig a 10 m deep strati- graphic section before the end of the season (Fig. 11.5). But the Iron Age purple-red painted vessels were still to be found, and it was not until the very end of the season that Ghirshman learned from the workers the location of to light. He consequently opened small test trenches in the plain south of the mound in order to identify the precise location of the necropolis. However, after a couple of days, he had to stop and wait until the next season to make further progress.
1934
The short season of 1933 had made it clear that the site was of great interest, and it was easy to convince the French Council of National Museums to go on supporting the mission and to resume research at the site. The 1934 season began on 12 September and lasted until the end of December.
On the South Mound, Ghirshman did not continue in Trench 2 but instead chose to proceed with a 500 m2 extension of Trench 1 towards the east (labelled Trench ‘1P’ for ‘1 prolongé’; see plan Fig. 11.3). Nonetheless he abandoned it after two weeks so that he could concentrate on the south of the mound and the excavation of the two necropolises. The mudbrick structure, referred to as ‘la grande construction’ by Ghirshman, was excavated under the supervision of the architect Maxime Siroux, beginning on the south-eastern side. This building was quickly inter- Period VI, during the Iron Age.
He also began to examine the surrounding plain in search of the previous illegal diggings. In several places, he noticed concentrations of sherds similar to the ceramics a spot near the village of Diz Tché, south of the Tappeh, where he excavated 15 tombs between 23 October and 22 November (later to be designated as Necropolis A) (Fig. 11.6). The stratigraphic situation of the tombs, whose dating has been a matter of debate, was unclear, and no described as being situated on three levels, each separated from the other by a 35 cm layer of deposit, as is shown for 11 of them in a rather naive and imprecise drawing.
At the end of October, a team making sondages to the west of the mound discovered built tombs in the plain near the purple-red on cream painted pottery and he designated the spot as ‘Necropolis B’. Digging in this area was a priority for the last month of the season. About 100 tombs not all opened and excavated. Ghirshman gave priority to the ‘built tombs’, by which he meant burials dug in the soil and covered by terracotta or stone slabs in the shape of a roof (Fig. 11.7).
1937
Ghirshman did not return to Sialk until 1937. In the mean- time, he excavated the Sasanian city of Bishapur in Fars and made a quick sojourn in Afghanistan where he explored on 12 September and lasted until 31 December.
Ghirshman extended the cleaning of constructions on the top of the South Mound, east of the previous Trench 1. He apparently did not dig deeper than the levels he attrib- uted to Period V that he considered to be contempo- rary with Necropolis A (see Trench VI in Fig 10.3). He also went on excavating the expanded Trench 1 (Trench 1P) started in 1934. Special attention was paid to the
58
Proto-Elamite remains whose architectural features were drawn by Hardy (Fig. 11.8), as well as to the seven under- lying levels corresponding to Period III, until at the end of December he brought to light a pottery kiln at the bottom of the sequence (Figs 11.9 and 11.10). The cleaning of ‘la grande construction’ was completed and a specialist qanat- digger was used to dig three test wells to the east of the main mound.
Necropolis B provided again about 100 new tombs, giving a total of 218 burials, as shown on the published map (Ghirshman 1939: pl. XXXVI). Most of them were documented by Ghirshman in 1934 and Hardy in 1937 through sketches of the architecture of the funerary structure, the position of the corpse or corpses and the relative position of each object (Fig. 11.11). A simple registering system was used, where objects were given a more or less possible to assess the context of origin for each of them (Fig. 11.12). Yet for Ghirshman many of the tombs were disappointing. Actually many of them had been pillaged during antiquity or in more recent times and unfortunately no clear description was ever made of and he had to dig several test trenches which led him, on 22 October, to open a new extension farther to the north. This second sector of the Necropolis, about 100 m opened nine test wells to the west of the graveyard to establish the limits of its extent in that direction (see plan, Fig. 11.3).
1937 was also the occasion to explore the North Mound (Sialk North) (le Petit Sialk). Already in December 1934, Ghirshman had recognised that the earliest remains of occupation were probably to be found in this area, but he was too busy at the time with his other soundings to begin in that year. The three trenches which he staked out his intuition to be true.
The Sialk material in the Louvre collections: an overview
The Law of 1930 established that discoveries of the Sialk material, and material from all other sites excavated by foreign expeditions after this date, should be shared: half the material should be granted to the excavators of the site, while the other half remained the property of the Iranian government. At the end of each campaign, two shares, equal attributed to each party. The procedure is illustrated by photographs included in the Sialk archive: they depict two
shares, numbered 1 and 2, displayed on tables (Fig. 11.13).
As soon as the objects reached Paris, in line with a decree of the Ministry of Public Education the collec- tion was attributed to the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities of the musée du Louvre, since it had partially - ately registered in the general ‘AO’ inventory book of the department (‘Antiquités orientales’). But, as the material from the 1937 campaign arrived just before the Second and was not resumed after the war: as a consequence, some of the Sialk objects remain unregistered today. Nevertheless, as is the case for objects that remained in Iran, all artefacts from Ghirshman’s excavations at Sialk for Sialk). The S-numbers are linked to the documenta- after their discovery.
According to the current state of documentation, the Sialk collection in the Louvre comprises 1,151 items. Of these, almost half of the collection (551 objects) are from the two graveyards. Ceramic and metal objects are by far the most numerous, with 430 and 514 items respectively. The collection also contains objects made of stone, bitumen, organic material (bone or shell) and vitreous material (glass, faience or Egyptian blue), but in smaller proportions (Fig. 11.14). The collection of mate- rial preserved in the National Museum of Iran is certainly comparable.
Tappeh Sialk in the musée du Louvre: museographic aspects
in 1935, a small selection was exhibited in Room X, dedi- cated to Ancient Persia, in a showcase showing the new discoveries made by French archaeologists in Iran. They were displayed beside objects from Tappeh Giyan.
When the collection hidden during the Second World War returned to the museum, the galleries of the depart- ment were then completely rearranged by André Parrot, who was at the time curator in charge of the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities. The new rooms opened in 1947, a century after the opening of the Louvre’s ‘Assyrian Museum’ in 1847. A small selection of Sialk artefacts from the Prehistoric period to the Iron Age was then presented in a showcase in Room V just in front of the showcases exhibiting painted ceramics of the Susa I period, so that comparisons between these two traditions could be made
59
(Fig. 11.15). This humble display of the Sialk material remained unchanged until the early 1990s, despite some minor rearrangements in the 1970s.
Thanks to the ‘Grand Louvre’ project launched in the 1980s, a collection of up to 200 objects from Sialk shown in chronological order is now on display. This is
the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Proto-Elamite periods are exhibited, together with material from Susa, the Susiana, Tappeh Giyan and Luristan. A second selection of artefacts is exhibited in the room dedicated to the Iron Age in Iran. Due to its importance for the archaeology of the Iranian plateau, Tappeh Sialk now occupies the place it deserves in the galleries of the Louvre.
60
12
The Challenges in Preserving Tappeh Sialk MOHSEN JAVERI
The site of Tappeh Sialk site in Kashan is acknowledged to Iranian central plateau. There is evidence of human activity at the site from the 7th millennium (Neolithic period) up until the Iron Age III (the Median period), a feature which has appealed to many researchers and has thus guaranteed that this ancient site would have an elevated status in the literature on the archeology of Iran. For these reasons, conducted on the site until now, the results of which have led to the publication of numerous books and articles.
The ancient site of Sialk is situated in the south- west of Kashan to the west of the Amirkabir road which connects downtown Kashan with the Fin district in which the famous Fin Garden is located. According to the aerial photograph (Fig. 12.1) and the map published by Roman 1938–9: pls I, XXXIII–XXXIV), the site lies completely outside the city of Kashan and no signs of construction are mounds (Sialk South and Sialk North). There are signs of agricultural activity only to the north-east of Sialk South and in the eastern half of the area between Sialk South and Sialk North. It is also noteworthy that the map shows two qanats (underground aqueducts) to the west of both Sialk South and Sialk North, of which no traces remain today. The existence of these qanats until the 1940s disproves the claim that these lands were private properties that have been encroached upon and shows that their acquisition has no historical basis and is a contemporary issue. This some land in the southern and western areas that they have inherited it from their ancestors.
The mounds of Sialk North and Sialk South were the National Heritage list under registration number 38 (Fig. 12.2) on 16 September 1931, thus proving their value and highlighting the importance of protecting them.
Despite this fact, many historical and cultural monuments have faced demolition because of urban development and the increase in urban populations, and the Sialk site is no exception. In fact, this site has been the victim of constant encroachment and destruction for some decades.
As described by Ghirshman (1938: 5–6) the site was part of Cemetery B and exposed the objects buried inside who started excavations at this site for non-commercial purposes. He excavated relatively large areas in both Sialk South and Sialk North and, fortunately, published Such reports have enabled us to know much about the cultural and cognitive development of human societies in the Kashan region in particular and in the central Iranian this site and the early commencement of archeological investigations which had the potential to shed light on many archeological and historical issues regarding the central Iranian plateau, the heyday of Sialk studies came to an end very soon and the Sialk site was so badly neglected that for long it was a refuge for vagrants and addicts or a place for motorcyclists to practice their stunts. Such neglect prepared the ground for some dishonest people to take advantage of the situation and claim ownership of the lands. After a long interval, new archaeological investiga- tions were conducted under the supervision of Dr Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi with the intention of revising the - esting new discoveries, including cultural objects and architectural remains, which have been published in numerous articles and books. The archeological research programme was then discontinued again until 2007–8, when Dr Hassan Fazeli Nashli began investigations in Sialk North in order to review the chronology.
Needless to say, such research projects are not only
61
protection of the area against encroachment and damages by various people due to the presence of archeologists on the site creating a dynamic and lively atmosphere. However, no professional research project has ever managed to system- atically calculate and determine the area of the Sialk site. This lack of accurate zoning has caused devastating irrepa- rable damage, such as through construction activities in the immediate vicinity and even inside the area of the site by are not only entirely without remorse for what they have done but they claim to legally own the lands and in some cases have even disrupted the sondage work, making the intervention of the police and the court necessary.
It is also worth noting that the Sialk site is located in the centre of a valuable area of land where there is increasing urban and agricultural development; therefore, it is subject to encroachment by local farmers and residents. Construction activities and agriculture have had a negative impact on the landscape of this ancient site and there has been severe damage to the historical remains that existing in this national centre of historic heritage. Thus, considering all the issues mentioned, the need for systematic archeo- logical sondages to determine the area of the Sialk site is felt now more than ever. In order to control the rising value of the properties surrounding the Sialk site, the Cultural Heritage Organization of Kashan enforces a ‘pulling levers’ strategy by not granting water, electricity, gas, telephone and wastewater permits to applicants and prohibiting any paving methods, whether asphalt, concrete, gravel and so on, for the roads within the Sialk zone. The Organization also exerts pressure on local residents to prevent indiscrim- for illegal construction within the main part of the Sialk site and its boundary 1. However, measures taken to tackle this zone of the Sialk site.
A new study programme authorised by the Institute of Archaeology was designed to improve the former state of knowledge and determine the limits of the Sialk site in order to prevent further damage to the remains and encroachment upon it. This programme was conducted under the supervision of the author with the assistance of Majid Montazer Zohuri and Javad Hoseinzadeh between 9 July 2015 and 6 August 2015; fortunately, the desired intention of determining the main area of the Sialk site was successfully achieved (Fig. 12.3).
The Sialk site embraces two mounds, Sialk North and Sialk South, which are 600 m apart. The sonding process was conducted so as to determine the extent of both mounds. A total of 11 sondages (each measuring 2 × 2 m) were exca-
North and South Mounds (Figs 12.4 and 12.5). It should be noted that both mounds possess the same cultural and mate- rial identities and cannot be separated—that is, these two mounds plus the land between them are considered one inte- grated site. In other words, all this land was already consid- ered to be within the boundaries of the Sialk site. For this reason, the excavation team refrained from making sondages in the land between two mounds, which has currently been encroached upon by farmers. Construction of modern build- ings on the one hand and encroachment upon the land by farmers on the other (Figs 12.6–12.11) are so worrying that it is feared the recognised boundary will completely disappear - logical study and the particular conditions of the Sialk site, - tions were introduced for each zone. The newly proposed regulations introduce stricter limits for construction activi- ties within the boundaries 1–3 of the Sialk site to ensure its survival. According to these new regulations, any construc- tion within boundary 1 is subject to prosecution. In addition, by introducing new regulations clarifying building height and distance from the mounds, the construction of high-den- sity multistorey urban blocks will be prevented (Fig. 12.12).
To sum up, the following recommendations are proposed in order to ensure the survival of Sialk:
1. Continuing to organise archeological excavations within the context of a long-term plan, because the presence of archeologists on the site slows down construction activities and weakens the incentives of land speculators.
2. Turning the Sialk site into a site museum with organ- ised programmes and encouraging visitors. The - ence on this issue and discourage development.
3. Taking possession by the government of the entire main part of the site in order to eliminate multiple ownership.
4. Annexing lands within boundary 1 as this is a ‘construction prohibited’ area and the annexation would enable further land to be annexed in the future and the core part of the site thus expanded.
5. Adding Sialk to the list of world heritage sites on the grounds that it is an important archaeological site on the Iranian plateau. This would ensure its future maintenance.
Finally, as an archaeologist and the head of the Cultural Heritage Organization of Kashan, I should say that the only way to prevent further damage in Sialk is to purchase the zone 1 and to clear it. If that is done we can save Sialk.
62
13
The Restoration of Historic Buildings in Kashan HOSSEIN MAHLOUJI
Launched in 1993, the Kashanica Foundation is a privately funded organisation. Its principal aim is to preserve the rich heritage of Iran, in particular by reconstructing the history of Kashan, and to pave the way for other cities to follow this example.
cave system in Kashan and a number of historical houses. These include the following:
•
• The Ameri House (Fig. 13.1)
• The Tabatabaei House (Fig. 13.2)
• Sultan Amir Ahmad Bathhouse (Fig. 13.3)
• The Al’ Yassin House (Fig. 13.4)
• The Hosseini House
• The Benikazemi House
• The Abbasian House (Fig. 13.5)
idea of preserving the cultural heritage of Iran through the restoration and reconstruction of historical houses. After 25 years of hard work, private entities have begun to adopt the Foundation’s practices. There are now over 300 historical building restoration projects in progress in Kashan and its neighbouring cities, towns and villages. Some of these sites have been purchased come to this later.
Tourists, who once recognised Kashan only as the city around 4 million a year, both from Iran and other coun- tries. The seed that was planted in 1993 has now grown into a massive tree, which stands high and spreads its foliage across the whole country. A considerable number of people have realised the cultural, artistic and economic value of Kashan’s cultural heritage.
Many examples could be given to support this claim, been done:
• The derelict house beside the Aqa Bozorg Mosque is now the theatre of Kashan.
• The historical house that belonged to the renowned singer Taj is now a music school.
• An old and derelict house has been turned into a doll and puppet museum.
• The ‘House of Pottery’, an exhibition of pottery- making and tiling, has become an academy for training artists and is now responsible for restoring the Mir Emad Mosque.
• The Sa’adat House has been transformed into a Research and Training Centre for Handicrafts.
• The Ab Bakhsh House has become a community centre for architects.
• The Attarha House has become the House of Photography and is the centre for a collection of historical pictures and photographic apparatus.
• Numerous weaving, brocade, (a traditional Kashanian form of weaving with a hand loom) and velvet-weaving shops in Kashan have been revived. (Fig. 13.6)
• The Isfahani House has been converted into the House of Handicrafts of the Blind. (Fig. 13.7)
• The trustee of the Noghli House is the founder of Iranian eco-tourism and the secretary of the Eco-tourism Society of Iran; he hosts eco-tourists from all over the world.
• Modern guest-houses inspired by the traditional and historical ambience of Kashan have become popular with tourists.
• New houses inspired by traditional architecture have been built in Natanz and Kashan.
63
• Houses with central courtyards, which were popular in the past, are being constructed again.
• Houses are being built which combine certain aspects of Kashani and Isfahani art; the Rezaei House in Qamsar is a good example.
• Some people have built houses using a combination become the owners of buildings that will be histori- cally important in the future.
• After the restoration and reopening of the Rais Cave in Niasar, the underground city of Noushabad and the natural Nakhjir Cave were discovered.
• Traditional Kashani cuisine is being taught in cookery classes.
• The Ehsan House contains a library and also exhibits the paintings of Manouchehr Sheybani.
• The Haji Qorban House is dedicated to people handi- capped during the eight-year Iran–Iraq war.
• The Rezapour House has been transformed into a House of Traditional Medicine and a pharmacy for medicinal herbs.
• The Al-e Yassin House has become the ‘House of Nations’.
• The Taj, Meshki and Pakouchi houses have been repurposed as the Anthropology Museum.
• The Razzaqian House is now dedicated to the Kashan Artistic Circle and is used for cultural activities.
• The Abrishamchi House has been transformed into the Kashan Museum of Rituals.
• The Rezazadeh dyer’s shop has become an Arts Library.
• The Ketabchi House is now the Museum of Education.
• The Serepereh dyer’s shop is now the Daneshpour
Zoorkhaneh (gymnasium).
• The Qa’raati House has been transformed into
Khane-ye Me’raj (the House of Ascension).
• The Aminabad Garden in Noushabad and Aliabad has
•
Cultural Heritage.
• The Maranjab Desert and Abuzeydabad have become
tourist attractions.
• The universities and higher educational institutions
in Kashan have become active in teaching traditional
architecture and restoration methods.
• The research centre for Kashanology has been
founded at Kashan University.
• People’s perceptions of cultural heritage have devel-
oped. For instance, some fundamentalist clergy who once considered tourists a threat to their values now realise they represent an opportunity for the area.
• People nowadays restore, renovate and utilise their cultural heritage instead of damaging it.
• The governmental sector that once impeded restora- tion attempts has changed its attitude and is now a facilitator of such work.
• The cities, towns and villages of Kashan are now immigrant friendly.
• Kashan has become an important centre for research into the architecture of the Qajar period.
• The number of books published about Kashan has increased dramatically.
• Traditional artistic shops, specialising in carpentry, ziloo weaving (special carpet weaving with cotton threads), carpet weaving using natural dyes and tradi- tional patterns, and making (shoes) have become active and widespread.
• - niques of traditional architecture, such as fretwork, muqarnas (stalactite work), yazdibandi (a special way of decorating the inner part of domes), rasmib- andi (tile decorating), ahakbori (relief decoration on limestone), stucco, mirrorwork, painting, simgel and kahgel (a special kind of mortar for walls and the covering of arches and brickwork).
• Negin House has been founded to take care of and supervise orphans.
• and mental handicaps.
• Darolekram (or the House of Generosity) has been founded to supervise talented but needy students.
Private entities as well as enthusiasts for Iran from all over the world have provided money towards these activities.
The idea of compiling and recording the ancient history of the city was initiated by the Kashanica Foundation, in aim, the Kashanica Foundation has chosen the following publishing scheme:
• Volumes 3 and 4 of Encyclopaedia Kashanica argue that the Aryans were originally settled in Iran, despite the old hypothesis that states that they migrated to this land.
• Volume 5 is entitled Notables of Kashan according to the Golestan Palace Albums. This volume draws on some 35,000 pictures of the Qajar period, especially from the reign of Naser al-Din Shah. These pictures were found among the pictures of the Album House (Albomkhaneh) in the Golestan Palace.
• Volume 6 is devoted to coins minted in Kashan. This volume is in the last stages of layout and artistic
64
preparation. These coins are now kept in the collec- tions of the National Museum of Iran, the Museum of Sepah Bank and the Reza Abbasi Museum.
• Volume 7 is also about coins minted in Kashan. These coins are currently in the private collections of Mr Nayyer, Mr Ala’eddini, Mr Kalantarizadeh and Ms Dalvi.
• Volume 8 is again devoted to the coins minted in Kashan that are currently in UK museums and elsewhere.
• Volume 9 is devoted to pottery dating from before the Islamic Conquest. This collection was found at Tappeh Sialk in Kashan and is currently kept in the stages of editing.
• Volume 10 is also devoted to the pottery of Kashan dating from before the Islamic Conquest. This volume
is being prepared in collaboration with the Louvre
Museum, Paris.
• Volumes 11 and 12 are devoted to the pottery of
Kashan dating from after the Islamic Conquest.
• Volumes 13, 14 and 15 are focused on the dialects of Abuzeydabad, the Jewish people of Kashan and
• Volumes 16, 17 and 18 are devoted to about 2,700 notables of Kashan, drawn from the city’s long history.
Other volumes of Encyclopaedia Kashanica are devoted to architecture, carpets, copper work, the Nayyebians, the groups of researchers are still working on these projects.
The Foundation’s vision has taken root in certain other cities and towns of Iran, such as Gorgan, Darreh Gaz, Quchan and Sabzevar.
65
Appendix
Papers delivered at the 2017 & 2018 Tappeh Sialk Conferences
Tappeh Sialk: the Glory of Ancient Kashan
31 March 2017 Asia House, London
Dr John Curtis (CEO, IHF), ‘Introduction to Tappeh Sialk’
Sialk North and South’
Dr Fereidoun Biglari (National Museum of Iran), ‘Pleistocene human occupation of the Kashan region, western edge of
the central desert’
Dr Jebrael Nokandeh (Director, National Museum of Iran), ‘Chalcolithic occupation on the western fringe of the Iranian
central plateau: a review of Sialk III culture’
Dr Nima Nezafati (Islamic Azad University, Tehran), ‘Ancient Metallurgy at Tappeh Sialk: a Review’
Prof. Margareta Tengberg, Dr Marjan Mashkour, Dr Céline Bon & Dr Morteza Djamali (National Museum of Natural
Dr Michael D. Danti (American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston), ‘The connections between Tappeh Sialk and
Hasanlu’
Prof. Robin Coningham, Dr Hassan Fazeli Nashli & Armineh Marghussian (University of Durham & University of
Tehran), ‘Sialk North: continuity and contrast on the fringe’
Mr Hossein Mahlouji (Bonyad-e Farhang-e Kashan), ‘The work of the Kashan Cultural Heritage Foundation (Kashanica)’ Mr Mohsen Javeri (University of Kashan), ‘The present state of Tappeh Sialk and proposals for its maintenance and
preservation’
66
Revisiting Tappeh Sialk and Ancient Kashan
2–3 July 2018 Asia House, London
Dr John Curtis, ‘An introduction to Tappeh Sialk’
Dr Toby Wilkinson (University of Cambridge), ‘Tappeh Sialk in time and space: ecology and connectivity’
Dr Michael Danti (American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston), ‘The connections between Tappeh Sialk and
Hasanlu’
Prof. Stephan Kroll (Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich), ‘A note on the late Iron Age double-handled tankards
from Sialk’
Dr Armineh Kaspari-Marghussian (University of Durham), ‘Sialk North: Continuity and change in pottery manufacture’ Sima Yadollahi (independent scholar), ‘Symbols and styles on Sialk III Pottery and their roles in understanding cogni-
tive systems’
Dr Francois Bridey & Dr Julien Cuny (Louvre Museum), ‘Tappeh Sialk in the Louvre: material and archives from the
Ghirshman excavations’
Prof. Barbara Helwing (University of Sydney), ‘Proto-Elamite sites in highland Iran: the state of research in Tappeh
Sialk and Arisman’
Dr Fereidoun Biglari (National Museum of Iran) & Dr Sonia Shidrang (University of Bordeaux), ‘Paleolithic hunt-
er-gatherers at the edge of the central desert: archaeological evidence from the Kashan region’
Prof. Hassan Fazeli Nashli (University of Tehran) & Dr Jebrael Nokandeh (Director, National Museum of Iran), ‘The
chronology of Sialk North and Sialk South’
Dr Nima Nezafati (Islamic Azad University), ‘Ancient Mining and Archaeometallurgical Studies at Sialk: a comparison
with Arisman’
Prof. Oliver Watson (Oxford University), ‘The early Islamic period at Kashan’
Dr Jebrael Nokandeh & Prof. Hassan Fazeli Nashli (Director, National Museum of Iran and University of Tehran),
‘A strategy for future excavation at Tappeh Sialk’
Mehrdad Malekzadeh (Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research), ‘A Median prototype for Persian style architecture:
(translated by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis)
Reza Naseri (Zabol University), ‘Decorative Bricks of the Late Iron Age in Eastern Media: some pieces from Sialk’
(translated by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis)
Hamid-Reza Momenian (Governor of Kashan), ‘General observations on cultural heritage in Kashan’ (translated by
Vahid Alaghband)
Dr Mohsen Javeri (University of Kashan), ‘The challenges and limitations of preserving Tappeh Sialk’
(Kashanica)’
67
Alden, J. R., 1982. ‘Trade and politics in Proto-Elamite Iran’, Current Anthropology 23: 613–40.
Alden, J. R. & Minc, L., 2016. ‘Itinerant potters and the transmission of ceramic technologies and styles during the Proto-Elamite period in Iran’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7: 863–76.
Algaze, G., 1989. ‘The Uruk expansion: cross-cultural exchange in early Mesopotamian civilization’, Current Anthropology 30: 571–608.
Algaze, G., 1993. The Uruk World System: the Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Chicago.
Algaze, G., 2001. ‘The prehistory of imperialism: the case of Uruk period Mesopotamia’, in Rothman, M. S. (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors: Cross- Cultural Interaction and its Consequences in the Era of State Formation, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Santa Fe, NM: 27–83.
Algaze, G., 2013. ‘The end of prehistory and the Uruk period’, in Crawford H. E. W. (ed.), The Sumerian World, London: 68–94.
zones on the eve of early states in southwestern Iran’, in Horejs, B. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Wiesbaden: 75–9.
Alizadeh, A., Aqhili, S. & Sarlak, S., 2013. Highland– lowland interaction in the late 4th and early 3rd millennium : the evidence from Qoli Darwiš, Iranian central plateau. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45: 149–68.
Amiet, P., 1985. ‘La période IV de Tépé Sialk recon- sidérée’, in Huot, J.-L., Yon, M. & Calvet, Y. (eds), De L’Indus aux Balkans. Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes, Paris: 293–312.
Amiri, S., Mashkour, M., Mohaseb, A. F., Tengberg, M., Abdollahi, M. & Sardari Zarchi, A., In press.
‘Subsistence economy of Gela Gap (Luristan) from the Late Neolithic to the Iron Age’, Archaeology, Journal of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, vol. 2.
Arne, T. J., 1935. The Swedish Archaeological Expedition to Iran, 1932-33, Copenhagen.
Arne, T. J., 1945. Excavations at Shah Tepe, Iran, Stockholm. Azizi, K. H., Fazeli Nashli, H. & Nishiaki, Y., 2013. ‘Tepe Rahmat Abad: a pre-pottery and pottery Neolithic site in Fars province’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 51:
1–32.
Biglari, F., 2012., ‘A reconsideration of the purported
epipaleolithic assemblage of Qaleh Asgar, Alborz
mountains’, Iranian Archaeology 3: 1–3.
Biglari, F. & Abdi, K., 2014. Evidence for Two Hundred Thousand Years of Human-Animal Bond in the Land
of Iran, Tehran.
Boardman, S. & Jones, G., 1990. ‘Experiments on the
Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 1–11. Burton-Brown, T., 1951. Excavations in Azerbaijan, 1948,
London.
Cappers, R. T. J., Bekker, R. M. & Jans, J. E. A., 2006.
Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands, Groningen
Archaeological Studies 4, Groningen.
Cappers, R. T. J., Neef, R. & Bekker, R. M., 2009. Digital
Atlas of Economic Plants I, 2a and 2b, Groningen. Charles, M., 1998. ‘Fodder from dung: the recognition and interpretation of dung-derived plant material from archaeological sites’, Environmental Archaeology 1:
111–22.
Chegini, N. N., 2002. ‘Bricks decorated with Seal
Impressions’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Ziggurat of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project Report no. 1, Tehran: 171–5.
Chegini, N. N. & Helwing, B., 2011. ‘Archaeological survey in the hinterland of Arisman and Kasan’, in
Bibliography
68
Vatandoust, A., Parzinger, H. & Helwing, B. (eds),
Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau: Report on the First Five Years of Research of the Joint Iranian-German Research Project, Mainz am Rhein: 421–83.
Coningham, R., Fazeli, H., Young, R. L. & Donahue, R. E., 2004. ‘Location, location, location: a pilot survey of the Tehran plain’, Iran 42: 1–12.
Coningham, R., Fazeli, H., Young, R. L., Gillmore, G. K., Karimian, H., Maghsoudi, M., Donahue, R. E. & Batt, C. M., 2006. ‘Socioeconomic transformations: settle- ment survey in the Tehran plain and excavations at Tepe Pardis’, Iran 44: 33–62.
Contenau, G. & Ghirshman R., 1935. Fouilles du Tépé Giyan près de Néhavend 1931 et 1932, Paris.
Cucchi T., Mohaseb, A., Peigné, S., Debue, K., Orlando, L. & Mashkour, M., 2017. ‘Detecting taxonomic and phylogenetic signals in equids cheek teeth with geometric morphometrics: towards new paleontolog- ical and archaeological proxies’, Royal Society Open Science 4(4). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/ rsos.160997.
Curtis, J., 2000. Ancient Persia, 2nd edn, London.
Curtis, J., 2005. ‘The material culture of Tepe Nush-i Jan and the end of the Iron Age III period in western Iran’,
Iranica Antiqua 40: 233–48.
Curtis, J. & Tallis, N., 2005. Forgotten Empire: the World
of Ancient Persia, London.
Cuyler Young, T., 1969. Excavations at Godin Tepe: First
Progress Report, Toronto.
Cuyler Young Jr., T. & Levine, L. D., 1974. Excavations of
the Godin Project: Second Progress Report, Toronto. Dahl, J. L., 2009. ‘Early writing in Iran, a reappraisal’,
Iran 47: 23–31.
Dahl, J. L., 2012. ‘The marks of early writing’, Iran 50:
1–11.
Proto-Elamite tablets from Tape Sofalin’, Iranian
Journal of Archaeological Studies 2(1): 57–73.
Proto-Elamite tablets from Tape Sofalin’, Iranian
Journal of Archaeological Studies 2/1: 57–73.
Dahl, J. L., Petrie, C. A. & Potts, D. T., 2013. ‘Chronological parameters of the earliest writing system in Iran’, in Petrie, C. A. (ed.), Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-range Interactions in
the 4th millennium BC, Oxford: 353–78.
Dales, G. F., 1977. New Excavations at Nad-i Ali (Sorkh Dagh), Afghanistan, Research Monograph 16,
Berkeley.
Danti, M., 2005a. ‘The Sialk Regional Archaeological
Survey 2005: Sialk Reconsideration Project’, in Malek
Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Fishermen of Sialk, Sialk
Reconsideration Project Report 4, Tehran: 67–77. Danti, M., 2005b. ‘Returning to Iran’, Expedition 47(2):
44–8.
Danti, M., 2013a. Hasanlu V: the Late Bronze and
Iron I Periods, Hasanlu Excavation Reports III,
Philadelphia, PA.
Danti, M., 2013b. ‘The Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in
northwestern Iran’, in Potts, D. T. (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Ancient Iran, New York: 327–76. Darabi, H., 2018. ‘The re-evaluation of Tepe Ali Kosh stra- tigraphy, Dehluran plain’, Archaeological Research of
Iran 8: 27–42.
Darabi, H., Richter, T. & Mortensen, P., 2018. ‘New exca-
vations at Tappeh Asiab, Kermanshah Province, Iran’,
Antiquity 92, Project Gallery: 1–6.
Desset, F., 2016. ‘Proto-Elamite writing in Iran,
ARCHÉO-NIL 26: 67–104.
Dittmann, R., 1990. ‘Eisenzeit I und II in West- und
Nordwest-Iran zeitgleich zur Karum-Zeit Anatoliens?’,
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 23: 105–38. Ducos, P., 1968. L’origine des animaux domestiques en
Palestine, Bordeaux.
Duerst, J. U., 1908. ‘Animal remains from the excava-
tions at Anau and the horse of Anau in its relation to the races of domestic horses’, in Pumpelly, R. (ed.), Explorations in Turkestan. Expedition of 1904. Prehistoric civilisations of Anau. Origins, Growth, , Washington: 341–442.
Dyson, R., 1962. ‘The Hasanlu project’, Science 135: 637–47.
Dyson, R., 1964. ‘Notes on weapons and chronology in northern Iran around 1000 B.C.’, in Mellink, M. (ed.), Dark Ages and Nomads c. 1000 B.C., Istanbul: 32–45.
Dyson, R., 1965. ‘Problems of protohistoric Iran as seen from Hasanlu’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24: 193–217.
Dyson, R., 1965. ‘Problems in the relative chronology of Iran 6000–2000 BC’, in Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago: 216–56.
Dyson, R., 1977. ‘Architecture of the iron I period at Hasanlu in western Iran and its implications for theo- ries of migration on the Iranian plateau’, in Deshayes, J. (ed.), Le Plateau Iranien et l’Asie centrale des orig- ines à la conquête Islamique, Colloques 567, Paris: 155–69.
Dyson, R., 1991. ‘Ceramics, i: The Neolithic period through the Bronze Age in Northeastern and North- central Persia’, Encyclopaedia Iranica 5: 266–75.
Dyson, R. H., 1999. ‘Triangle-festoon ware reconsidered’, Iranica Antiqua 34: 115–44.
69
Dyson, R. & Voigt, M. (eds), 1989. ‘East of Assyria: the highland settlement of Hasanlu’, Expedition 31(2–3), special issue.
El-Didamony, H., Assal, H. H., Hassan, H. S. & Abd El-Ghafour, N. G., 1998. ‘The thermal behaviour of contents’, Industrial Ceramics 18: 91–8.
Englund, R. K., 2009. ‘The smell of the cage’, Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 4.
Eskandari, N., 2012. ‘The re-evaluation of Konar Sandal North and its mudbrick staircase’, Payameh Bastanshenas 18: 69–78 (in Persian).
Fages, A., Hanghøj, K., Khan, N, Gaunitz, C., Seguin- Orlando, A., Leonardi, M., McCrory Constantz, C., Gamba, C., Al-Rasheid, K. A. S., Albizuri, S., Alfarhan, A. H., Allentoft, M., Alquraishi, S., Anthony, D., Baimukhanov, N., Barrett, J. H. O., Bayarsaikhan, J., Benecke, N., Bernáldez-Sánchez, E., Berrocal- Rangel, L., Biglari, F., Boessenkool, S., Boldgiv, B., Brem, G., Brown, D., Burger, J., Crubézy, E. O., Daugnora, L., Davoudi, H., de Barros Damgaard, P., de Los Ángeles de Chorro, Y., de Villa-Ceballos, M., Deschler-Erb, S., Detry, C., Dill N., do Mar Oom, M., Dohr, A., Ellingvåg, S., Erdenebaatar, D., Fathi, H., Felkel, S., Fernández-Rodríguez, C., García-Viñas, E., Germonpré, M., Granado, J. D., Hallsson, J. H., Hemmer, H., Hofreiter, M., Kasparov, A., Khasanov, M., Khazaeli, R. O., Kosintsev, P., Kristiansen, K., Kubatbek, T. O., Kuderna, L., Kuznetsov, P., Laleh, H., Leonard, J. A., Lhuillier, J., Liesau von Lettow- Vorbeck, C., Logvin, A., Lõugas, L., Ludwig, A., Luis, C., Arruda, AM., Marques-Bonet, T. O., Matoso Silva, R., Merz, V., Mijiddorj, E., Miller, BK., Monchalov, O., Mohaseb, F. A., Morales, A., Nieto-Espinet, A., Nistelberger, H., Onar, V., Pálsdóttir, A. H., Pitulko, V., Pitskhelauri, K., Pruvost, M. O., Rajic Sikanjic, P., Rapan Papeša, A., Roslyakova, N., Sardari, A., Sauer, E., Schafberg, R., Scheu, A., Schibler, J., Schlumbaum, A., Serrand, N., Serres-Armero, A., Shapiro, B., Sheikhi Seno, S., Shevnina, I., Shidrang, S., Southon, J., Star, B., Sykes, N. O., Taheri, K., Trixl, S., Tumen, D., Undrakhbold, S., Usmanova. E., Vahdati, A., Valenzuela-Lamas, S., Viegas, C., Wallner, B., Weinstock, J., Zaibert, V. O., Clavel, B., Lepetz, S., Mashkour, M., Helgason, A., Stefánsson, K., Barrey, E., Willerslev, E., Outram, A. K., Librado, horse management with extensive ancient genome time series’, Cell 177(6): 1419–35.e31.
Fahimi, H., 2003. ‘The Settlement of the Sarm Burials: a report on the Shamshirgah site in the south of Qom,
May 2003/Ordibehesht 1382’, Iranian Journal of
History and Archaeology XVIII/1 35: 69–61.
Fahimi, H., 2004. ‘Architectural remains of Sialk 6 (Iron Age 3) on the southern mound of Sialk: report of exca- vation in the trench R19’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), 2004. The Potters of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration
Project Report no. 3, Tehran: 89–55.
Fahimi, H., 2005. ‘Sialk 5 and 6 Cultural Sequences in the
South mound of Sialk: Excavation Report of Trenches R18, R19 and J21’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), 2006a, The Fishermen of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project Report no. 4, Tehran: 107–144.
Fahimi, H., 2010. ‘An Iron Age fortress in central Iran; archaeological investigations in Shamshirgah, Qom, 2005. Preliminary report’, in Matthiae, P. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5–10 May 2008, Wiesbaden: 165–83.
Fahimi, H., 2013. Studien zur Eisenzeit im zentralirani- schen Hochland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der neuen Ausgrabungen von Tappeh Sialk (2001- 2005), BAR International Series 2537, Oxford.
Fazeli, H., 2001. An investigation of craft specialisation and cultural complexity of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the Tehran plain, PhD disser- tation, University of Bradford.
- nium BC of the central plateau and its challenges’, Payameh Bastanshenas: 1–30 (in Persian).
Fazeli, H. & Abbasnejad, R., 2005. ‘Social transforma- tions and interregional interaction in the Qazvin plain during the 5th, 4th and 3rd millennia BC’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37: 7–26.
Fazeli, H. & Abbasnejad, R. 2007. ‘Prehistoric chronology of Tepe Ghabristan’, in Fazeli, H. (ed.), The Archaeology of the Qazvin Plain, Tehran: 7–26.
Fazeli, H., Beshkani, A., Markosian, A., Ilkani, H. & Young, R., 2009. ‘The Neolithic to Chalcolithic transition in the Qazvin plain, Iran: chronology and subsistence strategies’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 41: 1–21.
Fazeli, H., Coningham, R. A. E. & Batt, C. M., 2004. ‘Cheshmeh-Ali revisited: towards an absolute dating of the late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Iran’s Tehran plain’, Iran 42: 13–23.
Fazeli, H., Coningham, R. A. E., Maghussian, A., Manuel, M. A., Azizi Kharanagi, H. & Pollard, M., 2013. ‘Mapping the Neolithic occupation of the Kashan, Tehran and Qazvin plains’, in. Matthews, R. & Fazeli, H. (eds), The Neolithization of Iran: the Formation of New Societies, Oxford: 114–35.
70
Fazeli, H., Coningham, R. A. E., Young, R. L., Gillmore, G. K., Maghsoudi, M. & Raza, H., 2007. ‘Socio- season of settlement survey and excavations at Tepe Pardis’, Iran 45: 267–86.
Fazeli, H., Marghussian, A. & Coningham, R. 2010. ‘Archaeological report of Tape Sialk excavation at North Mound’, unpublished report.
Fazeli, H. & Nokandeh, J., 2018. ‘Sialk’, Current World Archaeology 89: 38–42.
Fazeli, H., Valipour, H. & Azizi Kharanaghi, M., 2013. ‘The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Qazvin and Tehran plains: a chronological perspec- tive’, in Petrie, C. A. (ed.), Ancient Iran and its Neighbours, Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium , Oxford: 107–30.
Fazeli, H., Vidale, M., Bianchetti, P. & Giuseppe, G., 2010. ‘The evolution of ceramic manufacturing technology during the Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic periods at Tepe Pardis, Iran’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan: 87–127.
Fazeli, H., Vidale, M., Guida, G. & Coningham. R. A. E., 2010. ‘The evolution of ceramic manufac- turing technology during the Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic periods at Tepe Pardis, Iran’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 42: 87–112.
Fazeli, H., Wong, E. & Potts, D. T., 2005. ‘The Qazvin plain revisited: a reappraisal of the chronology of the northwestern central plateau, Iran, in the 6th to the 4th millennium , Ancient Near Eastern Studies 42: 3–82.
Flohr, P., Fleitmann, D., Matthews, R., Matthews, W. & Black, S., 2016. ‘Evidence of resilience to past climate change in Southwest Asia: early farming communi- ties and 9.2 and 8.2 ka events’, Quaternary Science Review 136: 23–39.
Forsten, A., 2000. ‘Equus Pumpellii Duerst is no Horse, but a Kulan’, in Mashkour, M., Buitenhuis, H., Choyke, A. M. & Poplin, F. (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near East IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas, ARC Publication 32, Groningen: 153–5.
Frankfort, H., 1954. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Harmondsworth.
Gaunitz, C., Fages, A., Hanghøj, K., Albrechtsen, A., Naveed Khan, N., Schubert, M., Seguin-Orlando A., Owens, I. J., Felkel, S., Bignon, O., de Baros Damgaard, P., Mittnik, A., Mohaseb, A., Davoudi, H., Alquraishi, S., Alfarhan, A., Al-Rasheid, K., Crubézy, E., Benecke, N., Olsen, S., Brown, D., Anthony,
D., Massy, K., Pitulko, V., Brem, G., Hofreiter, M., Mukhtarova, G., Baimukhanov, N., Lõugas, L., Onar, V., Krause, J., Bazartseren, B., Lepetz, S., Mashkour, M., Ludwig, A., Wallner, B., Merz, V., Zaibert, V., Willerslev, E., Librado Sanz, P., Outram, A. K. & Orlando, L., 2018. ‘Ancient genomes revisit the ancestry of domestic and Przewalski’s horses’, Science 360: 111–14.
Ghahreman, A., 1978–2014. Flora of Iran, vols 1–27, Tehran.
Ghirshman, R., 1935. ‘Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de Tépé Sialk, près de Kashan (Iran)’, Syria 16(3): 229–46.
Ghirshman, R., 1938–9. Fouilles de Sialk près de Kashan 1933, 1934, 1937
Ghirshman, R., 1954. Iran, from the Earliest Times to the Islamic Conquest, Baltimore, MD.
Ghirshman, R., 1963. Perse: Proto-Iraniens, Mèdes, Achéménides, Paris.
Ghirshman, R., 1964a. The Art of Ancient Iran, New York. Ghirshman, R., 1964b. Persia: from the Origins to
Alexander the Great, London.
Ghirshman, R., 1966. Tchoga Zanbil (Dur Untash), I. La
Ziggurat, Mémoires de la délégation archéologique
en Iran XXXIX, Paris.
Ghirshman, R., 1977. L’Iran et la migration des Indo-
aryens et des Iraniens, Leiden.
Ghirshman, T., 1979. Archéologue malgré moi. Vie
quotidienne d’une mission archéologique en Iran,
Neuchâtel and Paris.
Gillmore, G. K., Coningham, R. A. E., Fazeli, H., Young,
R. L., Magshoudi, M., Batt, C. M. & Rushworth, G., 2009. ‘Irrigation on the Tehran plain, Iran: Tepe Pardis, the site of a possible Neolithic irrigation feature?’, CATENA 78(3): 285–300.
Gillmore, G. K., Stevens, T., Buylaert, J. P., Coningham, R. A. E., Batt, C., Fazeli, H., Young, R. & Maghsoudi, M., 2011. ‘Geoarchaeology and the value of multi- disciplinary palaeoenvironmental approaches: a case study from the Tehran plain, Iran’, Geological Society London Special Publications 352: 49–67.
Giovino, M., 2007. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: a History of Interpretations, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis CCXXX, Fribourg and Göttingen.
Golmohammadi, Z., Malekzadeh, M. & Naseri, R., 2014. ‘Qolam Tappe-ye Ja’farabad: Recognition of a Sialk 6 Satellite site in the foothills of Kashan’, in Azizi Kharanaghi, M. H., Khanipour, M. & Naseri, R. (eds), The Collection of Articles of the International Congress of Young Archaeologists, Aban 5th–7th, 1392, Tehran: 337–56.
71
Gopnik, H., 2011. ‘The Median citadel of Godin Period II’, in Gopnik, H. & Rothman, M. (eds), On the High Road, The History of Godin Tepe, Iran, Costa Mesa, CA: 285–362.
Gopnik, H., Reichel, C., Minc, L. & Elendari, R., 2016. ‘A view from the east: the Godin VI Oval and the Uruk Sphere’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7: 835–48.
Görsdorf, J., 2011. ‘Radiocarbon dating in Arisman’, in Vatandoust, A, Parzinger H. & Helwing, B. (eds), Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau, Archäologie in Iran und Turan 9, Mainz: 370–5.
Grezak, A., 2018. ‘Animal bone remains from Tepe Sialk, preliminary report’, unpublished report.
Hakemi, A. & Rad, M., 1950. ‘Description and result of the excavations at Hasanlu’, I: 1–103 (in Persian).
Heinrich, E., Schuler, E. v., Schmid, H., Ludwig, W., Strommenger, E. & Seidl, U., 1969. ‘Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung Volkswagenwerk im Euphrattal bei Aleppo begonnenen archäologischen Untersuchungen, erstattet von Mitgliedern der Mission’, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 101: 27–85.
Helbaek, H., 1969. ‘Plant collecting, dry-farming and irri- gation agriculture in prehistoric Deh Luran’, in Hole, F., Flannery, K. V. & Neely, J. (eds), Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain, an Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran, Ann Arbor: 383–427.
Helwing, B., 2006a. ‘Tappeh Sialk south mound: operation 3’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Fishermen of Sialk. Sialk Reconsideration Project, Report no. 4, Tehran: 27–66.
Helwing, B., 2006b. ‘The rise and fall of bronze centers around the central Iranian desert – a comparison Archäologische Mitteilung aus Iran und Turan: 34–48.
Helwing, B., 2011. ‘Conclusions: the Arisman copper produc- tion in a wider context’, in Vatandoust, A., Parzinger, H. & Helwing, B. (eds), Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau: Report on the First Five Years of Research of the Joint Iranian-German Research Project, Mainz am Rhein: 523–31.
Helwing, B., 2013. ‘Some thoughts on the mode of culture change in the 4th millennium Iranian highlands’, in Petrie, C. (ed.), Ancient Iran and its Neighbours, Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium , Oxford: 93–100.
Helwing, B., 2014. ‘East of Eden? A review of Turkey’s
The Neolithic in
Turkey, Istanbul: 321–77.
Helwing, B., 2014. ‘Bevelled-rim bowls’, in Lebeau, M. (ed.),
Interregional Volume I, ARCANE, Turnhout: 25–33. Helwing, B., 2017. Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser
und Wüste, Bonn.
Henrickson, R. H., 1983. ‘A reconstruction of the painted
chamber ceiling at Baba-Jan’, Iranica Antiqua 18: 81–96. Herles, M. & Piller, C., 2013. ‘Urartäisch, Post- Urartäisch oder Medisch? Überlegungen zur mittel- bis späteisenzeitlichen Chronologie Armeniens am Beispiel einiger ausgewählter Grabfunde aus Oshakan’, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient
Gesellschaft 145: 195–225.
emergence of complex societies in the central Iranian plateau’, in Tavernier, J. & de Graef, K. (eds), Susa and Elam: Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009, Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, Leiden: 27–42.
Hosseinzadeh, J., Noralivand, H., Javery, M., A., 2019 (in press). ‘The grey pottery culture and the second millennium cemeteries of the central plateau of
Ilkhani-Moghadam, H., Newton, C. & Robinson, M. (in press). ‘Archaeobotanical analysis of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic contexts from Tepe Pardis’.
Jacomet, S., 2006. Archaeological Sites, Basel.
Jones, G., Wardle, K., Halstead, P. & Wardle, D., 1986. ‘Crop storage at Assiros’, 254: 84–91. Kaboli, M., 2005. Excavation of Qara Tappe, Qomrud (in
Persian).
Kambakhsh Fard, S., 1991. Tehran Three Thousand Two
Hundred Years Ago, Tehran (in Persian).
Kehl, M., 2009. ‘Quaternary climate change in Iran – the
state of knowledge’, Erdkunde 63: 1–17.
Kleiss, W., 1983. ‘Khowrabad und Djamaran, Zweivor- geschichtliche Siedlungen am Westranddes zentrali- ranischen Plateaus’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran XVI: 69–103.
Kleiss, W., 1989. ‘Bestam (Bastam)’, Encyclopaedia
Iranica, vol. 4, Fasc. 2: 175–7.
Koldewey, R., 1918. Das Ischtar-Tor in Babylon, WVDO-G
XXXII, Leipzig.
Kourampas, N., Simpson, I. A., Fazeli Nashli, H., Manuel,
M. & Coningham, R., 2013. ‘Sediments, soils and livelihood in a late Neolithic village on the Iranian plateau: Tepe Sialk’, in Matthews, R. & Fazeli Nashli,
72
H. (eds), The Neolithization of Iran: the Formation of
New Societies, Oxford: 189–201.
Kroll, S., 2013. ‘Notes on the post-Urartian Horizon at
Bastam’, in Tekin, O., Sayar, M. H. & Konyar, E. (eds), Sunulan Makaleler. Essays in Honour of M. Taner Tarhan, Istanbul: 247–55.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., 1971. ‘The Proto-Elamite settlement at Tepe Yahya’, Iran 9: 87–96.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. & Tosi, M., 1973. ‘Shahr-i- Sokhta and Tepe Yahya: tracks on the earliest history of the Iranian plateau’, East and West 23: 21–53.
Paléorient 4: 177–92.
Lecomte, O., 2013. ‘Activités archéologiques françaises au Turkménistan. L’archéologie française en Asie centrale’, Cahiers d’Asie centrale 21(22): 165–90.
Leroy, S.A.G, Amini, A., Gregg, M.W., Marinova, E., Bendrey, R., Zha, Y., Naderi Beni, A. & Fazeli Nashli, H., 2019. ‘Human responses to environmental change on the southern coastal plain of the Caspian Sea during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods’, Quaternary Science Reviews: 343–64.
Lippert, A., 1979. ‘Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen am Kordlar-Tepe in Persisch-Westaserbeidschan (1971– 1978)’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 12: 103–53.
Liverani, M., 2006. Uruk. The First City (Engl. transl. of Uruk: La prima città, Rome, 1998), London.
Luneau, E. 2017. ‘Transfers and interactions between north and south in Central Asia during the Bronze Age’, in Allinger, E., Grenet, F., Jahoda, C., Land, M. & Vergati, A. (eds), Interaction in the Himalayas and Central Asia: Process of Transfer, Translation and Transformation in Art, Archaeology, Religion and Polity, Austrian Academy of Sciences.
McCall, B. K., 2009. The Mamasani archaeological survey: Epipalaeolithic to Elamite settlement patterns in the Mamasani district of the Zagros Mountains, Fars prov- ince, Iran, PhD dissertation, University of Sydney.
McCown, D. E., 1949. ‘The Iranian project’, American Journal of Archaeology 53: 54–9.
McCown, D., 1954. ‘The relative stratigraphy and chronology of Iran’, in Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, Chicago: 56–68.
Mahfroozi, A. & Piller, C. K., 2009. ‘First preliminary report on the joint Iranian-German excavations at Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 41: 177–209.
Majidzadeh, Y., 1976. The early prehistoric cultures of the central plateau of Iran: an archaeological history of
BC, PhD thesis, University of Chicago.
Majidzadeh, Y., 1981. ‘Sialk III and the pottery sequence at Tepe Ghabristan: the coherence of the culture of the
Iranian Plateau’, Iran 19: 141–6.
Majidzadeh, Y., 2008. Excavations at Tepe Ghabristan,
Iran. Rome.
Majidzadeh, Y., 2010a/1389a. Excavations of the Ozbaki
Archeological Site, vol. 1: Art and Architecture,
Tehran (in Persian).
Majidzadeh, Y., 2010b/1389b. Excavation of the Ozbaki
Archeological Site, vol. 2: Pottery, Tehran (in
Persian).
Majidzadeh, Y., 2010c. Excavations at Tepe Ozbaki, vol.
2, Tehran.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S., 1977a. ‘Preliminary report on 1st
and 2nd seasons of excavations in Tappeh Saghz Abad
(1970–1971)’, Marlik (Tehran University), vol. 2, 81–98. Malek Shahmirzadi, S., 1977b. Tepe Zagheh: a sixth millennium B.C. village in the Qazvin plain of the central Iranian plateau, PhD dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S., 1979. ‘A specialised house builder
in an Iranian village of the VIth millennium B.C.’,
Paléorient 5: 183–92.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S., 1995. ‘The relative chronology of
the central Iranian Plateau from the Neolithic to Early States’, Journal of Archaeology and History 9(2): 2–18 (in Persian).
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), 2002. The Ziggurat of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project Report no. 1, Tehran.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), 2003. The Silversmiths of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project Report no. 2, Tehran.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), 2004. The Potters of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project Report no. 3, Tehran.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), 2006a. The Fishermen of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project Report no. 4, Tehran.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), 2006b. Village of Iran, Tehran.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), 2012. The Villagers of Sialk, Tehran.
Malek Shahmirzadi, S., 2017 Archaeological Discourses (Collection of Research and Specialized articles), Tehran. Malekzadeh, M., 2002. ‘Median Blade in the scabbard of Sialk Warriors’, Iranian Journal of History and
Archaeology XVII/1: 17–33.
Malekzadeh, M., 2003. ‘A stone structure at Zar Bolagh,
Qom, a Median sanctuary (?), report on a primary visit and survey – Autumn 1381’, Iranian Journal of History and Archaeology XVII/2: 52–64.
73
Malekzadeh, M., 2004a. ‘A stone structure of Vasun, a structure of Median period (?), Report on primary visit and survey, winter 1382’, Iranian Journal of History and Archaeology XVIII/2: 42–51.
Malekzadeh, M., 2004b. ‘La Grande construction’ Sialk: Construction from the Median Period or the Ziggurat of the Sun?, Bastan Pazhuhi XII.
Malekzadeh, M., 2004c. ‘Sialk adobe platform: a Median structure or a Ziggurat...?’, Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 18(2): 60–82 (in Persian).
Malekzadeh, M., 2014. ‘Zar Bolagh, a late Iron Age site in central Iran’, Iranica Antiqua 49: 159–91.
Malekzadeh, M. & Naseri, R., 2005. ‘Decorative bricks of the late Iron Age of the Eastern Media; another Archaeology I/1 (Tehran University and Iran National Museum): 84–82.
Sialk: bricks with impressions’, Antiquity 87, Issue 335.
Malekzadeh, M., Safedyan, S., & Naseri, R., 2014. ‘Zar Bolagh: a Late Iron Age site in Central Iran’, Iranica Antiqua 49: 159–91.
Mashkour, M., 2002. ‘An introduction to the Archaeozoology of Sialk: a preliminary report of at Tepe Sialk of Kashan’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Ziggurat of Sialk, Report N°1, ICHTO: 135–42.
Mashkour, M., 2003. ‘Equids in the northern part of the Iranian Central Plateau from the Neolithic to Iron Age: new zoogeographic evidence’, in Levine, M., Renfrew, C. & Boyle, K. (eds), Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse, Cambridge: 129–38.
Mashkour, M., 2004a/1382. ‘Paleo-environmental studies in Sialk (Kashan)’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Silversmiths of Sialk, Report N°2, Tehran: 189–94 (in Persian).
Mashkour, M., 2004b/1383. ‘Preliminary report of the archaeozoological studies of the third season of the Sialk reconsideration project’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Potters of Sialk, Tehran: 95–108 (in Persian).
Mashkour, M., Fontugne, M. & Hatte, C., 1999. ‘Investigation on the evolution of subsistence economy in the Qazvin plain (Iran) from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age’, Antiquity 73: 65–76.
Matthews, R. & Fazeli, H., 2004. ‘Copper and complexity: Iran and Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium Iran 42: 61–75.
Matthews, R. & Fazeli Nashli, H. (eds), 2013. The Neolithisation of Iran: the Formation of New Societies, Oxford.
Matthews, R., Matthews, W. & Mohammadifar, Y. (eds), 2013. The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani, Oxford.
Meadow, R. H., 1986. Animal Exploitation in Prehistoric South-Eastern Iran: Faunal Remains from Tepe Yahya and Tepe Gaz Tavila-R37, 5500–3000 BC, Ann Arbor.
of the grey ceramics of the early iron age’, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 2: 93–105 (in Russian).
Medvedskaya, I. N., 1982. Iran: Iron Age I, BAR International Series 126, Oxford.
Medvedskaya, I. N., 1983. ‘Horse harness from Sialk B cemetery’, Iranica Antiqua 17: 59–79 (in Russian).
Medvedskaya, I. N., 2017. ‘The ancient Iranian horse bridle: questions of chronology, origins and develop- ment’, Iranica Antiqua 52: 159–95.
Miller, F. N., 1982. Economy and environment of Malyan, a third millennium urban center in southern Iran, PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Miller, F. N., 1984. ‘The use of dung as fuel: an ethno- graphic example and an archaeological application’, Paléorient 10(2): 71–9.
Miller, F. N., 1985. ‘Paleoethnobotanical evidence for deforestation in ancient Iran: a case study of urban Malyan’, Journal of Ethnobiology 5(1): 1–19.
Miller, F. N., 1990. ‘Godin Tepe, Iran, plant remains from period V, the late fourth millennium University Museum MASCA Ethnobotanical Reports 6: 1–12.
Miller, F. N., 1996. ‘Seed-eaters of the ancient near east: human or herbivore?’, Current Anthropology 37: 521–8. Miller, F. N., 1999. ‘Agricultural development in western central Asia in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age’,
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8: 13–19. Miller, F. N., 2003. ‘Archaeobotany in Iran past and future’, in Miller, F. N. & Abdi, K. (eds), Yeki bud, Yeki nabud, Essay on the archaeology of Iran in honour of William
M. Sumner, Los Angeles: 9–17.
Miller, F. N. & Kimiaie, M., 2006. ‘Some plant remains
from the 2004 excavations at Tall-e Mushki, Tall-e Jari A and B & Tall-e Bakun A and B’, in Alizadeh, A. (ed.), The Origins of State Formations in Prehistoric Highland Fars, Southern Iran: Excavations at Tall-e Bakun, Oriental Institute Publications, vol. 128, Chicago: 107–18.
Miller, F. N. & Smart, T. L., 1984. ‘Intentional burning of dung as fuel: a mechanism of the incorporation of charred seeds into the archaeological reports’, Journal of Ethnobiology 4: 15–28.
Mo’tamedi, N., 1997. ‘Ziwiyeh, excavations of 1374: architecture and pottery’, Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Archaeological Reports I: 143–70.
74
Mousavi, A., 1994. ‘Une brique à decor polychrome de l’Iran occidental (viii–vii s. av. J.-C.)’, Studia Iranica 33(1): 7–18.
A Dictionary of Iranian Plant Names, Tehran.
Muscarella, O., 1968. ‘Excavations at Dinkha Tepe, 1966’, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 27: 187–96. Muscarella, O., 1973. ‘Excavations at Agrab Tepe, Iran’,
Metropolitan Museum Journal 8: 47–76.
Muscarella, O., 1974. ‘The iron age at Dinkha Tepe, Iran’,
Metropolitan Museum Journal 9: 35–90.
Muscarella, O., 1994. ‘North-western Iran: bronze age
Anatolian Iron Ages 3, Ankara: 139–54.
Muscarella, O., 2006. ‘The excavations of Hasanlu: an archaeological evaluation’, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 342: 69–94.
Mutin, B., Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. & Minc, L., 2016. ‘Investigating ceramic production during the Proto- Elamite period at Tepe Yahya, southeastern Iran: results of instrumental neutron activation anal- ysis of periods IVC and IVB ceramics’, Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 7: 849–62.
Naseri, R., 2011. Analysis of morphology and typology of brick decorations in the Iron Age architecture, MA
thesis, University of Tehran.
a late Iron Age site in the Median heartland’, Iranica
Antiqua 51: 103–39.
Negahban, E., 1964. A Preliminary Report on Marlik
Excavation. Gohar Rud Expedition, Rudbar 1961–
1962, Tehran.
Negahban, E., 1977. ‘Preliminary report on the Qazvin
expedition: excavations at Zagheh, Qabrestan,
Sagzabad (1971–1972)’, Marlik 2: 26–44 (in Persian). Negahban, E., 1996. Marlik: the Complete Excavation
Report, Philadelphia, PA.
Nesbitt, M., 2006.
Grass Seeds, London.
Nezafati, N. & Pernicka, E., 2006. ‘The smelters of Sialk.
researches at Tappeh Sialk’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Fishermen of Sialk, Sialk Reconsideration Project, Report no. 4, Tehran: 79–102.
Nokandeh, J., 2002. ‘Gozaresh-e layeh negari-e boresh-e alef dar tappeh-e jonoubi-ye Sialk’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Ziggurat of Sialk. Sialk Reconsideration Project Report no. 1, Tehran: 55–84 (in Persian).
Nokandeh, J., 2003. ‘Gozaresh-e kawosh dar bakhsh-e maskouni-ye tappeh-ye jonoubi-e Sialk’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Silversmiths of Sialk, Sialk
Reconsideration Project Report no. 2, Tehran: 49–64
(in Persian).
Nokandeh, J. & Fahimi, H., 2003. ‘Gozaresh-e kavosh
dar Bakhsh-e sanati-ye Tappeh-e jonubi-ye Sialk’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Silversmiths of Sialk, Tehran: 31–48 (in Persian).
Nokandeh, J. & Nezafati, N, 2003. ‘Noghrekaran-e Sialk: shavahd-e felezkari-e felezat-e kamyab dar tappeh-e jonubi-ye Sialk’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Silversmiths of of Sialk,Tehran: 19–30 (in Persian).
Nokandeh, J., 2004. ‘Gozaresh-e dovumin fasl-e kavosh dar Bakhsh-e Maskuni-ye Tappeh-e jonubi-ye Sialk’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Potters of Sialk, Tehran: 31–47 (in Persian).
sevom Sialk: gozaresh teranshe –e L15’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Fishermen of Sialk, Tehran: 65–106 (in Persian).
Nokandeh, J., 2010. Neue Untersuchungen zur Sialk III-Periode im zentraliranischen Hochland: auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse des Sialk Reconsideration Project, Berlin.
Orlando, L., Mashkour, M., Burke, A., Douady, C. J., Eisenmann, V. & Hanni, C., 2006. ‘Geographic distribution of an extinct equid (Equus hydruntinus: Mammalia, Equidae) revealed by morphological and genetical analyses of fossils’, Molecular Ecology 15(8): 2083–93.
Perkins, A. L., 1949. The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia, Chicago.
Perrot, J. (ed.), 2013. The Palace of Darius at Susa, London.
Piller, C., 2003–2004. ‘Zur Mittelbronzezeit im nördlichen Zentraliran: Die Zentraliranische Graue Ware (Central Grey Ware) als mögliche Verbindung zwischen Eastern und Western Grey Ware’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35–6: 143–73.
Pittman, H., 1992. ‘The Proto-Elamite period’, in Harper, P. O., Aruz, J. & Tallon, F. (eds), The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre, New York: 68–77.
Pittman, H., 2013. ‘Imagery in administrative context: Susiana and the west in the fourth millennium in Petrie, C. A. (ed.), Ancient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-Range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium ., Oxford and Oakville, CT: 293–336.
Pollard, M. A., Fazeli, H., Davoudi, H., Sarlak, S., Helwing, B. & Saeeidi Anaraki, F., 2013. ‘A new radiocarbon chronology for the North Central Plateau of Iran from the Late Neolithic to the Iron Age’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45: 27–50.
75
Popper, K., 1957. The Poverty of Historicism, 2nd edn, London.
Popper, K., 1976. Unended Quest: an Intellectual Biography, LaSalle, IL.
Porada, E., 1965. Ancient Iran: the Art of Pre-Islamic Times, London.
Porada, E., 1993. ‘Cylindrical seals’, Encyclopedia Iranica 6: 479–505.
Pollock, S., 2013. ‘The Eden that never was: work, gender & political economy in Uruk Mesopotamia’, in Uruk. Altorientalische Metropole und Kulturzentrum, Berlin.
Potts, D. T., 1977. ‘Tepe Yahya and the end of the 4th millennium on the Iranian plateau’, in Deshayes, J. (ed.), Le Plateau Iranien et l’Asie central des origines à la conquête Islmique, Colloques 567, Paris: 23–31.
Potts, D. T., 2001. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967– 1975: the Third Millennium, Cambridge, MA.
Potts, D. T., 2009. ‘Bevel-rim bowls in Iran and the Indo- Iranian borderlands’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 61: 1–23.
Prickett, M. E., 1986. ‘Settlement during the early period’, in Beale, T. W. & Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (eds), Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967–1975: the Early Periods, Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research: 215–46.
Quigley, C., 2001. Skulls and Skeletons: Human Bone Collections and Accumulations
Rice, P. M., 1987. Pottery Analysis: a Source Book, Chicago.
Roaf, M., 2008. ‘Medes beyond the borders of modern Iran’, 3(6): 9–11.
Roaf, M. & Stronach, D., 1973. ‘Tepe Nush- i Jan, 1970: second interim report’, Iran 11: 129–40.
Roberts, N., 2002. ‘Did prehistoric landscape management retard the post-glacial spread of woodland in south- west Asia?’, Antiquity 76: 1002–10.
Rothman, M. S. & Badler, V. R., 2011. ‘Contact and development in Godin period VI’, in Gopnik, H. & Rothman, M. S. (eds), On the High Road, History of Godin Tepe, Costa Mesa, CA: 67–138.
B (Grabungsbericht über Area B)’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Ziggurat of Sialk, Tehran: 113–34 (in Persian).
Roustaei, K., Mashkour, M. & Tenberg, M., 2015. ‘Tappeh Sang-e-Chakhmaq and the beginning of the Neolithic in north-east Iran’, Antiquity 89(345): 573–95.
types of graveyard architectures and burial methods at the cemetery of the Iron Age of the Sarm mound, Kahak, Qom’, Archaeological Reports (2), Tehran: 163–27.
Sarlak, S., 2010 Seven Thousand-year-old culture of Qom city (Archaeological excavations of Qoli Darvish site, Jamkaran – Qom), Qom.
Sarlak, S., 2011. Archeology and History of Qom: the Results of Archaeological Excavation and stra- tigraphy of the Qoli Darvish and Shadqoli Khan sites, Archaeological sounding and Surveys in the Historical, Cultural and Religious Axis of Qom, Qom.
Sarlak, S., n.d. Ancient site of Qoli Darvish: Qom the Seven Thousand Year Old City, Qom.
Sarlak, S. & Hessari, M., 2018. ‘The Qom Plain at the end of the Bronze and the beginning of the Iron Age’, Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies: 1–16.
Stratigraphie Comparée et Chronologie de l’Asie Occidentale, London.
Scheil, V. 1905. Documents archaiques en écriture proto- élamite, Paris.
Schmidt, A., Quigley, M., Fattahi, M., Azizi, G., Maghsoudi, M. & Fazeli, H., 2011. ‘Holocene settle- ment shifts and palaeoenvironments on the central Iranian plateau: investigating linked systems’, The Holocene 21(4): 583–95.
Schmidt, E., 1933. ‘The Tepe Hissar excavations 1931’, Museum Journal of Philadelphia 23: 322–485.
Schmidt, E., 1935. ‘The Persian expedition’, University Museum Bulletin 5(5): 41–9.
Schmidt, E., 1936. ‘Rayy research 1935, part I’, University Museum Bulletin 6(3): 79–87.
Schmidt, E., 1937. Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan, Philadelphia, PA.
Schmidt, E., 1953. Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions, Chicago.
Scott, J. C., 2017. Against the Grain: a Deep History of the Earliest States, New Haven, CT, and London.
Segnit, E. R. & Anderson, C. A., 1972. ‘Scanning electron Transactions of the British Ceramic Society 71: 85–8.
Seidl, U., 1976. ‘Ein Relief Dareios I in Babylon’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (n. f.) IX: 125–30.
Selz, G. J., 1998. ‘Über mesopotamische Herrschafts- konzepte. Zu den Ursprüngen mesopotamischer Herrscherideologie im 3. Jahrtausend’, in Dietrich, M. & Loretz, O. (eds), Dubsar anta-men. Festschrift für Willem H. Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres, Münster: 283–344.
Simpson, I. A. & Nejad, M. G., 2008. ‘Field-based geoar- chaeological investigations, Sialk, Plain of Kashan, Iran’, unpublished report.
Soleimani, N. A. & Fazeli Nashli, H., 2019 (in press). ‘The re-evaluation of Kerman Neolithic chronology based on the excavation of Tepe Gav
76
Koshi Esfandagheh-Jiroft’, Journal of Research on
Archaeometry 4(2): 61–79.
report: Tappeh Sialk (Iran), seasons 2008–2009’,
Bioarchaeology of the Near East 4: 69–73.
Neolithic cremation at Tappeh Sialk, Iran’, Iranica
Antiqua 51: 1–19.
Stein, A., 1940. Old Routes of Western Iran, London. Stein, G. J., 1999. Rethinking World-Systems: Diasporas
Colonies & Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia,
Tuscon, AZ.
in the fort’, Iran 16: 11–24.
Stronach, D., 1978b. Pasargadae, Oxford.
Stronach, D., Roaf, M., Stronach, R. & Bökönyi, S., 1978.
‘Excavations at Tepe Nush-i Jan’, Iran 16: 1–28. Sumner, W. M., 1974a. ‘Excavations at Tall-i Malyan,
1971–72’, Iran 12: 155–75.
Sumner, W. M., 1974b. ‘Tall-i-Malyan and the chronology
of the Kur River Basin, Iran’, American Journal of
Archaeology 77(3): 288–90.
Sumner, W. M., 1986. ‘Proto-Elamite civilization in
Fars’, in Finkbeiner, U. & Röllig, W. (eds), Gamdat Nasr: Period or Regional Style?, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften), Wiesbaden: 199–211.
Sumner, W. M., 2003. Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavations at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran, Philadelphia, PA.
Tengberg, M., 2003. ‘The archaeobotanical project at Tepe Sialk: a preliminary report’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Silversmiths of Sialk, Tehran: 9–11.
Tengberg, M., 2004. ‘Archaeobotanical analysis at Tepe Sialk: results from the 2003/4 season’, in Malek Shahmirzadi, S. (ed.), The Potters of Sialk, Tehran: 25–32.
Thornton, C. P., 2013. ‘Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq: a new look’, in Matthews, R. & Fazeli Nashli, H. (eds), The Neolithisation of Iran: the Formation of New Societies, Oxford: 241–55.
Tiratsyan, N., 2010. ‘An Urartian jar burial from Nor Armavir’, in Kosyan, A., Petrosyan, A. & Grekyan, Y. (eds), Urartu and Its Neighbors: Festschrift in Honor of Nicolay Harutyunyan in Occasion of his 90th Birthday, vol. 2, Yerevan: 134–46.
Tite, M. S. & Maniatis, Y., 1975a. ‘Examination of ancient pottery using scanning electron microscope’, Nature 257: 122–3.
Tite, M. S. & Maniatis, Y., 1975b. ‘Scanning electron Transactions of the British Ceramic Society 74: 19–22.
Tosi, M., 1968. ‘Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta, a Chalcolithic settlement in the Iranian Sistan’, East and West 18: 9–66.
Tourovetz, A., 1989. ‘Observations concernant le matériel archéologique des nécropoles A et B de Sialk’, Iranica Antiqua 24: 209–44.
Tsuneki, A., 2013. ‘Proto-Neolithic caves and neolithi- sation in the southern Zagros’, in Matthews, R. & Fazeli Nashli, H. (eds), The Neolithisation of Iran: the Formation of New Societies, Oxford: 84–96.
Valamoti, S. M. & Charles, M., 2005. ‘Distinguishing food from fodder through the study of charred plant remains: Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14(4): 528–33.
Vallat, F., 2003. ‘Un fragment de tablette proto-élamite découvert à Ozbaki, au nord-ouest de Téhéran’, Akkadica 124: 229–31.
Vallois, H. V., 1940. Les ossements humains de Sialk: contribution à l’étude de l’histoire raciale de l’Iran ancien, Paris.
Vanden Berghe, L., 1959. Archéologie de l’Iran ancien, Leiden.
Vanden Berghe, L., 1964. La Nécropole de Khurvin, Leiden.
77
Van Van Van
Van Van
Van
Driel, G., 1977. ‘De Uruk-Nederzetting op de Jebel Aruda – een voorlopig Bericht (Stand Eind 1976)’, Phoenix 23: 42–64.
Ess, M., Crüsemann, N. & Hilgert, M. (eds)., 2013.
Uruk: 5000 Jahre Megacity: Exhibition Catalogue Berlin 2013
Zeist, W. & Bakker-Heeres, J. A. H., 1982. ‘Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant. 1. Neolithic sites in the Damascus basin: Aswad, Ghoraifé, Ramad’, Palaeohistoria 24: 165–256.
Zeist, W. & Bakker-Heeres, J. A. H., 1984. ‘Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant. 3. Late- Palaeolithic Mureybit’, Palaeohistoria 26: 171–99.
Zeist, W. & Bakker-Heeres, J. A. H., 1985. ‘Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant. 4. Bronze Age sites on the north Syrian Euphrates’, Palaeohistoria 27: 247–316.
Zeist, W., Smith, P. E. L., Palfenier-Vegter, R. M., Suwijn, M. & Casparie, W. A., 1986. ‘An archaeobotanical study of Ganj Dareh Tepe, Iran’, Palaeohistoria 26: 201–24.
Vatandoust, A., Parzinger, H. & Helwing, B. (eds), 2011.
Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Report on the First Five Years of Research of the Joint Iranian-German Research Project, Mainz am Rhein.
Vaufrey, R., 1939. ‘Faune de Sialk’, in Ghirshman 1938–9. Verdugo, P. M., et al., 2019. ‘Ancient cattle genomics, origins, and rapid turnover in the fertile crescent’,
Science 365: 173–6.
Voigt, M. M., 1983. Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: the Neolithic Settlement, Philadelphia, PA.
Voigt, M. M. & Dyson, R. H. J., 1992. ‘Chronology of Iran, ca. 8000–2000 B.C.’, in Ehrich, R. W. (ed.), Chronologies of Old World Archaeology, Chicago: vol. 1, 122–178; vol. 2, 25–53.
Von den Driesch, A., 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Cambridge, MA.
N. (eds), A Millennium of History, Berlin: 333–41.
Weeks, L., 2013. ‘The development and expansion of a Neolithic way of life’, in Potts, D. T. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford: 49–75.
Weiss, H. & Cuyler Young, T., 1975. ‘The merchants of Susa: Godin V and plateau-lowland relations in the late fourth millennium ’, Iran 13: 1–17.
Willcox, G., 2002. ‘Charred plant remains from a 10th millennium B.P. kitchen at Jerf el Ahmar, Syria’, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 55–60.
Wilson, D. E. & Reeder, D. A. (eds), 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd edn), Baltimore, MD.
Hananlu IV B: a study in Receptivity’, in Levine, L. D. & Young Jr., T. C. (eds), Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica VII, Malibu, CA: 371–86.
Wong, E. H. Y., 2008. Ceramic characterization and inter-site relationships in the northwestern Central Plateau, Iran, in the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sydney.
Wulsin, F., 1932. Excavations at Tureng Tappeh near Asterabad, Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology 2, New York.
Young, T. C., 1963. Proto-historic western Iran, an archaeological and historical review: problems and possible interpretations, PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Young, T. C., 1965. ‘A Comparative Ceramic Chronology for Western Iran, 1500–500 B.C.’, Iran 3: 53–85. Young, T. C., 1967. ‘The Iranian migrations into the
Zagros’, Iran 5: 11–34.
Young, T. C., 1985. ‘Early iron age Iran revisited: prelimi-
nary suggestions for the re-analysis of old constructs’, in Huot, J.-L., Yon, M. & Calvet, Y. (eds), De l’Indus aux Balkans. Recueil à la Mémoire de Jean Deshayes, Paris: 361–78.
Baghizadeh, S., Golcheh, M., Ahmadpour, H., Miri, J., Nezhad, M. G., Nezari, N., Mohammadi, N. B., Alimadadi, E., Sadeghi, M. & Hamivand, M., 2015. ‘Meymanat Abad Tepe: an important site in late fourth millennium in Iranian central plateau’, Archaeology 4(1): 13–21.
press). Meymanatabad Tepe: An important Site of the Late Fourth Millennium BC on the Iranian Central Plateau (in memory of Yousef Majidzadeh).
Zeder, M. A., 2006. ‘A critical assessment of markers of initial domestication in goats (Capra hircus)’, in Zeder, M. A., Bradley, D. G., Emshwiller, E. & Smith, B. D. (eds), Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, Berkeley: 181–208.
78
2. Hassan Fazeli Nashli & Jebrael Nokandeh
Fig. 2.1 Aerial photograph of Tappeh Sialk North and South
79
Fig. 2.2 Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi and Jebrael Nokandeh of the ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’
Fig. 2.3 Aerial photograph of Tappeh Sialk North
80
Fig. 2.4 Section drawings from Tappeh Sialk North and c14 dates, Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic periods
81
Fig. 2.5 Ceramic forms and decoration, Tappeh Sialk North, Late Neolithic period (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pls XXXVIII and XXXIX)
Fig. 2.7 Ceramics, Tappeh Sialk North, Transitional Chalcolithic period (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pl. XLV)
(National Museum of Iran)
82
Fig. 2.8 Sialk II-style ceramics, Tappeh Pardis
Fig. 2.9 Aerial view of Tappeh Sialk South
Fig. 2.10 Typical Qara Tappeh ceramics (Kaboli 2005). Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent the Sialk II style but the form is Qara Tappeh style. No. 5 represents Bakun style and nos 6 and 7 show the Early Chalcolithic style of north central Iran.
Fig. 2.12 Typical ceramic designs of Tappeh Sialk South, Early and Middle Chalcolithic period (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pls XII, XIII and XIV)
Fig. 2.11 Typical ceramic designs of Tappeh Sialk, Early, Middle and Late Chalcolithic period (Nokandeh 2010)
83
Fig. 2.13 Typical ceramic designs of the Middle Chalcolithic of Tappeh Sialk South (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pls XIV and XV)
Fig. 2.14 Middle Chalcolithic ceramics from Tappeh Sialk South, ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’. The top picture shows Mr Abbas Etemad Fini, who worked on the Sialk excavations with Roman Ghirshman, Malek Shah- mirzadi and Hassan Fazeli Nashli. He is still very active at Tappeh Sialk.
lithic and Late Chalcolithic period (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pl. LXXV)
Fig. 2.15 Large storage jar, Tappeh Sialk South, ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’
84
Fig. 2.17 Stamp seals from Tappeh Sialk (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pl. LXXXVI)
Fig. 2.18 Two Middle Chalcolithic stamp seals (National Museum of Iran)
Fig. 2.19 Late Chalcolithic pottery goblet showing leopards and goats, Tappeh Sialk South (National Museum of Iran)
Fig. 2.20 Late Chalcolithic pottery beaker showing male goats, Tappeh Sialk South (National Museum of Iran)
85
Fig. 2.21 Late Chalcolithic pottery beaker, Tappeh Sialk South (National Museum of Iran)
Fig. 2.23 Burnished grey ware bowl, Late Chalcolithic period, ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’
Fig. 2.22 Late Chalcolithic pottery bowl, Tappeh Sialk South (National Museum of Iran)
Fig. 2.24 Bevelled-rim bowl, Tappeh Sialk South, Late Chalcolithic period, ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’
86
Fig. 2.25 Sialk IV ceramics, Uruk style (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pl. LXXXIX)
Fig. 2.26 Sialk IV ceramics (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pl. XC)
Fig. 2.27 Sialk IV ceramics (Ghirshman 1938–9: I, pl. LXXXVIII)
Fig. 2.28 Iron Age ceramics, Tappeh Sialk Cemetery B, 1st millennium (National Museum of Iran)
87
Fig. 2.29 Iron Age ceramics, Tappeh Sialk Cemetery B, 1st millennium (National Museum of Iran)
Fig. 2.30 Iron Age ceramics, Tappeh Sialk Cemetery B, 1st millennium (National Museum of Iran)
Fig. 2.31 Iron Age ‘pestle’, ‘Sialk Reconsideration Project’
88
Fig. 2.32 Radiocarbon dating of the south part of the Sialk ‘ziggurat’
89
90
3. Roger Matthews
Fig. 3.1 Map of Neolithic sites in Iran and surrounding area
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search